Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 12th day of August, 2005
C.D.No.38/2005
Smt.R.Madhavi,
W/o Sri.R.Ravikumar,
(D/o N.Narasimhaiah),
R/o Kurnool Town,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited,
D.No.40/326-16-B (Upstairs),
B.R.P. Complex, Park Road,
Kurnool.
2. The Managing Director,
Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited,
Syndicate House,
Manipal-576119,
Udupi District,
Karnataka State. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 09.08.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for complainant and Sri.N.Nanda Kishore, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per R. Ramachandra Reddy, Member)
CC/38/2005
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to repay the maturity value of debentures, Rs.50,125/- together with interest over the maturity value at 14% interest per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint and to do such other and further things as this Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant had taken TEN “Secured Redeemable Non Convertible debentures” issued by the Company of the opposite parties, from the office of the first opposite party at Kurnool, which are of the face value of Rs.1,000/- each, on 01.07.2000 with distinctive No.s.1.399 to 10423 under certificate No.CHC 50565 and Regd. Folio No.55888 which are redeemable on or after 01.07.2005. In the said debentures, the first opposite party had agreed to give interest over the debenture amount at the rate of 14 % per annum from the date of the deposit till the date of redemption. Being so, after the date of maturity of the above said redemption date, when the complaint approached opposite party No.1 requesting for the redemption of the debentures of the complaint, and also for the payment of the redemption value of the debentures i.e., Rs.50,125/-, the in-charge of the opposite party No.1 did not give any proper reply, and their replies were quite evasive and self contradictory, which could not be understood by the complainant. On repeated trips to the office of the opposite party No.1, the complainant noticed that the said office is slowly being wound up, and there is no enough staff therein, as they used to be earlier. The opposite party company being a reputed financial institution, and it having undertaken to give the maturity value of the debentures the complainant on their maturity, is bound under law to refund the maturity value of debentures of the complainant.
3. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 29.06.2004 calling upon the opposite parties to refund the maturity value of the debentures standing in the name of the complainant together with interest at 14% per annum over the maturity value of the debentures, from the date of their maturity till the date of the repayment. The opposite parties having received the said legal notice, instead of complying with the just and legal demand of the complainant, sent separate reply letters dated 02.07.2004 and 16.07.2004 with all false and evasive replies to the complainant. The complainant humbly submits that the claim of the opposite parties as pleaded in their reply letters that they had submitted a scheme before the Honourable High Court of Karnataka and they are awaiting its approval by the Honourable High Court is not within her knowledge, and she also humbly submits hat it is only a ruse for the opposite parties to delay and defeat the payment of the amount due to her over her debentures. In fact, the complainant had deposited the said sum with the opposite parties, for meeting the marital expenses of the proposed marriage of her sister’s daughter Kum.Nagarathna, who is now aged 19 years. Though the sister’s daughter of the complainant is getting good matches she is not able to proceed ahead now with the said marriage proposals, due to the locking up of the amounts of the complainant with the opposite parties. This attitude of the opposite parties in unnecessarily delaying the refund of the maturity value of the debentures without assigning any tenable reasons amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum seeking redressal for the above said grievances.
4. The complainant in support of her case filed the documents besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 for its appreciation in this case.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 submitted its written version along with the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore and alleging the case of complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to attract the provisions of the C.P. Act and opposite party No.2 remained exparte throughout the case proceedings.
6. The written version of the opposite party no.1 submits that even assuming that the complainant version is true, the opposite party No.1 was always apprising the complainant of the financial status of the Company by way of reply to her notices and through other correspondence. In respect of the facts whether the predicament of the complainant is true or false, it is matter of public knowledge now that the opposite party company No.2 in industries due to unforeseen changes in physical policies of R.B.1 and other factors and it is brought to the notice of this Honourable Forum in the Company Petition No.201/2002 filed by the opposite party no.2 before the Honourable High Court of Karnataka. The final orders are passed formulating a scheme for the payment of deposits debentures etc. The said order is marked as Ex.B1. In the said order the Honourable High Court of Karnataka observed that in view of the scheme being sanctioned and it can be gathered from the operative portion of the said order under sub-clause (c) in page 94, all cases filed against the opposite party no.2 including National State and District Fora shall stand abated. In view of the said orders, which are self explanatory and speaks for itself, this complaint also stand abated. The company (opposite party No.2) is bound to abide by the repayment scheme as detailed in the said orders (Ex.B1) as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In support of its case the opposite party No.1 filed the true copy of the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore in Company petition No.201/2002 and is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite parties towards her and there by her entitleness to the reliefs sought.
9. As there is no dispute about taking of the “Secured redeemable non-convertible debentures” by the complainant which are issued by the company (opposite party No.2). The Ex.A1 is the original debenture certificate No.CHC 50565 dated 01.07.2000 with 25 shares each at the rate of Rs.1,000/- with 14% interest per annum and the redemption period was 60 months, with redemption date as 01.07.2005 and its maturity value was Rs.50,125/-. The Ex.A2 is the legal notice given by the complainant’s counsel on 29.06.2004 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and requests them to refund the matured value of the said debentures together with 14% interest over the maturity value and with costs of the notice Rs.100/- within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice. The Ex.A2 (3 letters) is the reply letters dated 01.07.2004, 02.07.2004 and 16.07.2004 to the legal notice of the complainant’s counsel (Ex.A2) informing that the matter with the Honourable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore for its judgment and further informed that the deposit amount will be paid as per the scheme filed before the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and requested the complainant’s counsel to appraise his client about the scheme and wait till it is approved, the said scheme by the said Court.
10. After taking into consideration the Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and the Ex.B1for their appreciation in this case and in view of the true copy of the Judgment order of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the Company Petition No.201/2002 (Ex.B1) which was filed by the opposite party No.1 where in it clearly states under Sub-clause (c) in page 94, in view of the scheme being sanctioned under the said judgment that all the criminal cases filed against the Company (opposite party No.2) as well as suits, execution petitions and complaints/Appeals before the National Commission, State and District Consumer Fora shall stand abated and the payments made in these proceedings be adjusted against the outstanding debts payable to such claimants.
11. In the result, in view of the above discussion and particularly the true copy of judgment orders of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (Ex.B1) the complaint of the complainant is abated as not entertain able in this Forum.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 12th day of August, 2005
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: -Nil- For the opposite parties: -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Original debenture certificate.
Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice date d 29.06.2004.
Ex.A3 Reply letters dated 01.07.2003, 02.07.2004 and 16.07.2004.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 True copy of under date d 15.10.2004, C.P.No.201/2002 of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocat, Kurnool for the complainant.
- Sri.N.Nanda Kishore, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.1.
- The managing Direc tor, Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited Syndicate House, Manipal-576 119, Udupi District. Karnataka State.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
