IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 219/2019 (filed on 30-11-2019)
Petitioner : Gee Jacob,
S/o. Jacob,
Thottumkal (H)
Chemmalamattom P.O.
inKondoor village.
Vs.
Opposite Party : Muthoot Finance Limited,
Rep. by its Company Secretary,
Registered Corporate office,
Muthoot Chambers,
Saritha Theatre Complex,
Second Floor, Banerji Road,
Kochi – 682018.
(Adv. Vinu Jacob Mathew)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant had applied for the secured non-convertibledebenture which was issued by the opposite party. The oppositeparty has allotted the 5 debenture having face value of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant on 19-1-2012. As per the termsand conditions of the public issue of non –convertible debenture, opposite party has agreed to provide interest at the rate of8.77% on application money of allotted amount of Rs.5000/-after the completion of 66 months. When the complainantapproached the respondent after the completion of the saidperiod, they turned off the complainant’s demand for refund ofassured amount by raising untenable conditions. So far aspetitioner has not got any amount from the opposite party.Though the lawyers notice issued by the complainant was receivedby the opposite party,they did not pay any amount. The actof the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hencethis complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an orderto direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/-being the maturityamount of the non-convertible debenture along with interest andRs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Commission andfiled version as contending as follows:
The opposite party admits the issue of non-convertible debentureof face value of Rs.1000/- each. The opposite party hasappointed LinkintimeIndia Pvt Ltd as its registrar and transferagent who has to pay the maturity payment on the relevantdate. The beneficiary position data is kept by NSDL/CDSL. The LinkintimeIndia Pvt Ltd has verified the beneficiary positiondata and has replied that as per the beneficiary position datareceived from depository, investor was not holding NCD’sunder demat A/c no. 1203350000962781 on 3-7-2017 hence thematurity was not paid. Every NCD holder / purchaser must havea depository participant, where he is maintaining his demataccount. The NCD’ s purchased by him will be in his demataccount with his depository participant. All the transactionwhich has made by the complainant with NCD shall be made inhis account with the depository participant. Hence the statementissued by his depository participant will prove the actual positionof his NCD’s if any. The LinkintimeIndia Ltd has requested toprovide the scan copy of complainant’sdemat account holdingstatement of record date from his depository participant. Thecopy of the reply received from the Linkintime India Ltd andintimation filed with stock exchange for the record date was alsoprovided to them. The communication address of the registrarand transfer agent was also provided to the petitioner. But therewas no response from the petitioner. There is no deficiency inservice on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examinationand marked exhibits A1 to A4. Joby Cherian who is the RegionalAdministrative Manager of the opposite party filed proofaffidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibit B1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record wewould like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of theopposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the opposite party has issued5 non-convertible debenture having face value of Rs.1000/- eachin the name of the complainant on 19-1-2012. The saiddebenture certificate is produced by the complainant and markedas exhibit A1. On perusal of exhibit A1we can see that theperiod of the debenture was 66 months and the interest agreed topay at maturity is 8.77%. According to the complainant when heapproached the opposite party to redeem the debenture the samewas refused by raising some lame excuses. The complaint wasresisted by the opposite party on the ground that thecomplainant was not holding NCD’s under demate account on3-7-2017.
Non‐Convertible Debenture is a financial instrument issued byCorporates for specified tenure to raise resources / funds throughpublic issue or private placement. This debt instrument cannotbe converted into equity. It is a fixed income instrument same asbank fixed deposit and can be traded on stock exchanges.Interest can be earned monthly / quarterly / annually /cumulative and on maturity principal amount is paid to thedebenture holder.
According to the opposite party Linkintime India Pvt Ltd who is theregistrar and transfer agent of the opposite party has verified thebeneficiary position data and has replied that as per thebeneficiary position data received from depository, investor wasnot holding NCD’s under demat A/c no. 1203350000962781 on3-7-2017 hence the maturity was not paid. Exhibit A4 is thereply notice issued by the opposite party. On verification ofexhibit A4 we can see that the opposite party has given directionto the complainant to scan copy of demat A/c holdingstatement of record date to their registrar and transfer agent.The opposite party provides the address of their registrar andtransfer agent to the complainant. However the complainant didnot adduce any evidence to prove that he had provide the detailedscan copy of demat A/c holding statement of record date toopposite party’s registrar and transfer agent.
The Consumer Protection Act gives not only the rights to theconsumer but also cast some duties to the consumer. Theirservice provider as well as the consumer is bound to act inaccordance with law and as per the contractual agreement.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment dtd.06th October2021 i.e. in “SGS India Limited v/s Dolphin InternationalLimited”, categorically held that the onus of proof that there wasdeficiency in service is on the complainant.
Here in this case as discussed above we are of the opinion thatthe complainant has failed to prove that the compound wall wasdamaged in the accident and any deficiency in service on thepart of the opposite party. Thus the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2022.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Allotment Advice cum Refund Order dtd.19-01-2012 issued by opposite party
A2 –Copy of lawyers notice dtd.24-07-19
A3 – Postal receipt
A4 –Letter dtd.31-07-2019 issued by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of reply letter issued by opposite party to petitioner
By Order
Assistant Registrar
