The complainant is the customer of the OP Company by purchasing Teak bond through Application No. NA-10441/Bond No.NT-10441, by name NIRANTHARA-A-12 on 21^st November 2002, for the maturity amount of Rs.36,000/- which is to be matured as on 21^st November 2014, by agreeing to pay monthly installment of Rs.3000/-.  Complainant being handicapped had purchased said Teak bond as a saving for his personal use in future out of his salary on the undue influence made by OP No.1 [Executive code.330246].  The above said Teak bond was purchased at Raichur through OP No.1 i.e. then agent by name Smt. Gouramma.  During the course of payment in all, he has paid 04 installments in between 21^st November 2002 to 19-09-2007 through Receipts No. 1)107636 dt 21-09-2002, (2) 177067 dt 15-12-2003, (3) 516218 dt 10-03-2005 & (4) 6030 dt 19-09-2007.  Thereafter, Complainant after hearing some rumors about non-performance of Ops scheme well in market, he decided to withdraw the above said invested amount of Rs.12,000/- by surrendering the same bond NT-10441, through pro-forma provided by Ops office bearers at Raichur on 01-10-2010.  However, subsequently, complainant has requested Ops number of times despite his handicapped position, for refund of Surrender value in the said aforesaid bond, which was being dragged by Ops under one or other pretexts best known to OP No.2.  And even his personal request to Mr Jayalingegouda Mob.No.9448219284, as per intimation of OP No.2’s office bearer also went in vain without any positive response for refund of a said maturity amounts.  OPs' said act, having advertised vide in public about OPs company performance and assurance/s of guaranteed returns on deposited amounts and further having unduly influenced about the benefits/maturity values on deposit through OP No.1 i.e. then agent by name Gouramma and now dragging the matter on one or other reasons for payment of Surrender amount, even after lapse of 2 years 1 month of having surrendered original bond through application date i.e. 01/10/2012, is nothing but deficiency in service negligence and unfair trade practice in the eyes of law, for which Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- for redressal of his grievance.

2.  On the aforementioned averments, the complainant, who is a school teacher in Raichur town filed a consumer complaint on 03-02-2014 in C.C. No.10/2014 on the file of DF Raichur seeking the following reliefs;

1. To refund Surrender amount in bond No NA-10441/Bond No.NT-0441 by name NIRANTHARA-A-12 i.e. invested amount of Rs.12,000/- along with 18% interest thereon, since 01-10-2010 to till realization.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental harassment, and deficiency in service.
3. To pay costs of proceedings of Rs.10,000/- and any other reliefs, which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit, in the interest of justice.

3. The claim was contested by OP No.1 contending that presently she is not working with OP No.2 as subsequent to her marriage, she is residing with husband and not in touch with Op No.2.  therefore, in case of any responsibility of this OP, may kindly be pleased to shift the same on OP 2.  As this OP not working with OP No.2 and not gaining anything presently from OP No.2.

            4.  The post of President in DF Raichur was vacant.  Matter was heard by Acting President u/sec. 22(D) of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 along with another member of the DF Raichur.  The Acting President prepared and pronounced the judgment on 30-10-2014 allowing the complainant to recover Rs.12,000/- with interest 9% p.a. w.e.f. 01-10-2010 till realization from the respondents plus Rs.7000/- towards deficiency in service.  The Member, who constituted the bench did not sign the judgment and she reserved her decision to 06-11-2014.  She wrote a letter to the State Commission.  Subsequently she pronounced her judgment on 17-12-2014 allowing the claim for refund of Rs.12,000.00 but interest at 10% p.a. w.e.f. 01-10-2010 plus Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

5.  The State Commission, on its administrative side passed an office  administrative order, which reads as follows;

ಆದೇಶ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಕರಾಆ:ಆಡಳಿತ:108:2014, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 02-02-2015

“ರಾಯಚೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ಪರಿಹಾರ ವೇದಿಕೆಯ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 09/2014 ಮತ್ತು 10/2014ರ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯನುಸಾರ ಕ್ರಮ ವಹಿಸಿ ಇತ್ಯರ್ಥಪಡಿಸಲು ಕೊಪ್ಪಳ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ಪರಿಹಾರ ವೇದಿಕೆಗೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಆದೇಶಿಸಿದೆ.”

                                         ಸಹಿ/

                             ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ್ರಾರ್ ಮತ್ತು ಆಡಳಿತಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು

                      ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಅಯೋಗ,

                                     ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು.

6.  The file has been received in this office from the State Commission on 07-02-2015. Notice to all the parties and advocates on records issued after the case has been renumbered as CC No.6/2015.  Notice also sent to OP No.2, who has been placed ex-parte in the proceedings on 25-02-2014 because such procedure is not contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 unlike provisions of Rule- 6 of CPC.  It is clear from Regulation – 26 of the Consumer Protection Regulations – 2005 framed in exercise of powers conferred under 30 A of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 the provisions of CPC be avoided except those specifically  made applicable under Section 13(4), (6) & (7) of the Act.

7.  The complainant has purchased a teak bond under a scheme known as NIRANTARA-A-12, the purchase value of that teak bond being Rs.36000/-.  The date of joining of the scheme was on 21-11-2002.  The first installment of Rs.3000.00 was paid on 21-11-2002.  Maturity starts from 21-11-2014, which means guaranteed amount of Rs.6000/- on the investment of Rs.3000/- after the expiry of 12 years.  The purchase value of bond has to be paid in 12 yearly installments, due date falling on 21^st day of November of each calendar year commencing from 2002.  The complainant paid second installment of Rs.3000/- on 15-12-2003.  The third installment, which was due on 21-11-2004 was paid on 10-03-2005.   The complainant paid the 4^th installment on 19-09-2007.  The complainant has not paid the remaining 8 installments in the scheme.

8.  On 01-10-2010, the complainant wrote a letter as per Ex.P5 to the OP No.2 company requesting for surrendering of teak bond for refund.  Surrendered original certificate to OP company at Bangalore for Rs.12,000.

9.  The complainant has not furnished the terms and conditions of the bond, which entitles him to get the refund of amount paid immediately on the date on which he sought for refund on 01-10-2010.  In our opinion, there is no such right vested to the complainant to get the money from the OP company on 01-10-2010.  Therefore, there could not be any deficiency in service w.e.f. 01-10-2010 and according to us, granting of interest by the Members of DF Raichur w.e.f. 01-10-2010 is not appropriate on the facts of the case.  If at all, the complainant had right to get the money on 01-10-2010, then the complaint filed on 03-02-2014 myst be held to barred by time u/sec. 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

10.  The contract in Ex.P1 contains the address of the registered office, marketing office, administrative office, branch office and divisions office.  Raichur had no branch office.  Therefore, no cause of action has arisen in jurisdiction of DF Raichur as filing of the complaint before DF Raichur is not maintainable.

11.  On the date of filing of the complaint on 03-02-2014, there was no branch office at Raichur town, wherein cause of action has arisen.  Therefore, the complainant has not made the branch office at Raichur as party to the proceedings.  As such, the complaint before the DF Raichur is not entertainable.

12.  The complaint against an agent, Smt.Gouramma (OP No.1) is not maintainable because she is not the service provider and not undertaken to repay the amount and she is not a party to the contract referred to in Ex.P.1.  She was only a collecting agent in Raichur for the OP No.2 company at Bengaluru for certain agency commission.  OP No.2 is the service provider and liability to pay the amount is on the OP No.2 company only.  Therefore, filing the complaint in DF Raichur making an agent, to whom the amount is paid is not maintainable in view of provisions of Sec – 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because no cause of action against OP No.1.

13.  The contract in Ex.P1 do not contain any term, under which OP No.2 company shall be obliged to refund the purchase price of teak bond paid by the complainant before the maturity date referred to therein.  If that be so, Where is the deficiency in service?  We find no answer to this question either in the complaint or in the written arguments filed by the counsel for the complainant.  The company had not undertaken to provide service of refund of purchase money paid to the investor prior to maturity date.  That being so, non-payment of purchase price in this particular case cannot be termed as deficiency in service as on the date of filing of the complaint in the absence of specific agreement for payment of the same as and when the investor demands.

14.  Based on the above discussion, the complaint is held to be devoid of merits and therefore dismissed.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.