The complainants are the father and son.  Their present address as given in the complaint shows that they are residents of Bengaluru city.  Each one of the complainant have invested Rs.5,000 separately in M/s Guru Teak Investments (Mysore) Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru.  The company has not paid the amount payable at maturity according to the complainants.  Therefore, they have filed a consumer complaint before District Forum, Raichur in C.C. No.9/2014 on 03-02-2014 seeking for the following reliefs;

1. To refund of maturity amount in bond No CT-30649 and 30650 along with maturity amount of Rs.12500/- in each bond along with 18% interest thereon, since maturity date 10/3/2013 in each bond 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.

2. The case was contested by OP No.1 contending that she is not working with OP No.2 after her marriage.  She is not in touch with OP No.2 and in case of responsibility of this OP be shifted to OP No.2.

3.   Arguments were heard in the District Forum, Raichur by the Acting President u/sec. 22 (D) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 and a Member because of the post of President was vacant.  The Acting President signed a judgment on 30-10-2014.  The Member, who constituted the bench wrote a separate judgment delivered it on 08-12-2014.  The peculiarity of this case is that the Acting President allowed the complaint with compensation of Rs.8000/- with interest at 9% p.a.  Whereas, the Member, who constituted the bench also allowed the complaint with compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 10% p.a.  The prepared judgments available in the records do not discloses the reasons for difference between the members, who decided the case.  Instead of following the procedure envisaged in proviso to sec. 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 waiting till post of President is filled-up, the Acting President wrote a letter to the State Commission seeking for suitable direction in the matter.

4.  The State Commission, on its administrative side passed an office order 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. 

5.  The file has been received in this office from the State Commission on 07-02-2015 and the case has been renumbered as C.C No.5/2015 in this Forum.  Notice has been ordered to all the parties of the proceedings and the advocates on record.  Even though the OP No.2 has been placed ex-parte in the proceedings before the DF Raichur, notice of this Forum has been issued to OP No.2 also because there is no procedure placing the respondent as ex-parte barring the such respondent from participating in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 unlike Rule 6 Order IX of CPC.  This is also clear from Regulation No.26 of Consumer Protection Regulations – 2005.  The advocate for the complainant as well as advocate for OP No.1 have sent written arguments through post, which represents their arguments in the case.

6.  In paragraph – 7 of the complaint, it is stated that the respondent No.1, which is an agent of respondent No.2 residing within territorial jurisdiction of Raichur Forum and therefore the said Forum has got jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the complaint in accordance with law.

7.  Section – 182 of the Indian Contract Act – 1872 defines an agent and principal, according to which – an ‘agent’ is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons.  The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the ‘principal’.  In the case under consideration before us, OP No.1 is only an agent acting for the OP No.2 Company in its dealings with the third persons, which binds the principal and agent having acted in the course of its contacting persons under personal liability to provide service, not being a service provider.

8.  Section 226, 227 and 228 of the Indian Contract Act – 1872 deals with the fact of agency on contract with third parties.  Section – 226 lays down that – Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person.  

            9.  In view of this provision of law, the OP No.1 cannot be held personally liable for making the amount invested in the OP No.2 company by the complainants.  Bonds, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 do not disclose that OP No.1 has received the amount and personally liable to pay the sum to the complainants after maturity.  Hence the claim against OP No. l fails.

            10.  Teak Bond, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the Xerox copies of front side of the bond, which discloses that the bond is subject to terms mentioned overleaf.  But the complainants have not furnished terms and conditions embedded in the reverse side of the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.  Therefore, we cannot be aware of the exact terms and conditions.

            11.  As per Teak Bond, Ex.P1, OP No.2 company received Rs.5,000.00 from the complainant No.2 Girish on 10-03-2003.  According to this bond, the company has to deliver 8 CFT of Teak timber planted in Belathur village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli taluk, Mandya District on maturity date: 10-03-2012.  In the alternative, approximate value of timber, Rs.12500.00 is to be paid.  It is therefore evident that it is the choice of the company either to give the quantity of timber promised or the amount and not the choice of the investor.  If the company has not performed the contract, the remedy for the aggrieved person is to sue for the breach of obligation under the contract and the company has to perform the specific contract as promised.  So this is not a case of fixed deposit with the investment company and the amount payable upon maturity like other financial investments, because the company has not promised to pay Rs.12,500.00 to the bond holders at Raichur or their native place at Matamari village.  The cause of action therefore has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Raichur District Forum.  The complaint ought to have been filed either inDF Bangalore, where the service provider is situated or in DF Mandya where the ownership of the one teak tree is situated by the complainants.  In other words, the District Forum Raichur had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

            12.  On the same analogy, the complaint by first complainant was also not entertainable by the DF Raichur because the ownership of one tree situated in Belathur village in Mandya district and the company in which he made the investment is not situated in Raichur district.  Infact, the complainants are also residents of Bengaluru.  They could have easily filed the complaints before DF Bengaluru.

13.  According to us, the joint complaint by father and son not maintainable before any District Forum.  The cause of action for each one are different.  The amount payable to the father is not payable to the son.  Similarly, the amount payable to the son is not payable to the father.  The order prepared by Acting President in DF Raichur dated: 30-10-2014 do not disclose which of the complainants is entitle to compensation of Rs.8,000/- and the judgment prepared by the Member do not indicate to whom the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is payable.

            14.   The contract referred to in the document Ex.P2 is between the first complainant and the OP No.2 company.  The second complainant and the OP No.1 are not parties to the said transaction.  OP No.2 is the service provider and the first complainant is the consumer.  Similarly, the first complainant and OP No.1 are not parties to the transaction referred to in Ex.P1.  No service is undertaken by OP No.2 in relation to the transaction in Ex.P1 to the first complainant.  In other words, the first complainant and OP No.1 are third parties.  Therefore, the joint petition by the father and son in respect of two different transactions is not maintainable u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

15. The complainants who are residing in Bengaluru must be aware that they had no cause of action to file the complaint in DF Raichur because OP No.1 was only an agent receiving the amount on behalf of OP No.2 company which is situated in Bangalore and OP No.1 is not a party to the contract and her service was limited to the collection of the amount on behalf of the principal.  The advocate who prepared the complaint must be aware of the scope and authority of an agent under the Indian Contract Act – 1872 and also provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  Nevertheless frivolous and vexatious complaint was filed before DF Raichur against OP No.1 causing a lot of inconvenience to her.  Hence compensatory cost of Rs.5,000.00 is awarded to the OP No.1;  50% of which is payable by each complainant u/sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

            18.  For the reasons given above, the complaint filed before District Forum, Raichur is not maintainable and therefore dismissed.  The Forum directs that each complainant to pay sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) towards cost awarded to OP No.1 within three months.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.