Before the District Forum Kurnool

Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.com LL.B, Member

Thursday the 10^th day of March, 2005

C.D.No.126/2004

P.Venkata Laxmi,

W/o P.Laxmi Narasaiah,

D.No.41/513-4,

Kothapeta,

Kurnool District.                               . ..Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                              Smt.L.Sumitra Rani, Advocate.

-Vs-

1. The Chairman/Managing Director,

I.C.D.S. Limited,

          Regarding Office,

          Syndicate House.

Manipal-576119.                     . . . Opposite party

1. Branch Manager,

I.C.D.S. Limited,

Branch Office,

Gandhi Nagar,

Kurnool.                                  . . . Opposite party

O R D E R

(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Member)

CC.No.126/2004

1.       This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to repay the maturity value of debentures together with interest over the maturity value at 10.5 percent interest per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages, to pay a sum of Rs.500/- 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 complainant purchased debentures from the opposite party No.1 on 01-02-2002 for a period of 12 months and received debenture certificate for Rs.36,636/- on the maturity value dated 01-02-2003.  After the maturity of the said debenture the complainant demanded so many times and submitted the papers to the opposite party No.1 for a refund of the maturity amount and also issued legal notice date d 19-10-2004 and opposite party No.1 replied to the said notice and not mentioned any proper cause for repayment of the said maturity amount and the complainant further submits that she is suffering with illness and wants to undergo treatment at Medicity Hospital for Kidney problems and need the said maturity amount for the said treatment.  Hence, the complainant approached this Forum seeking redressal for the above said grievances.

3.       The complainant in support of her case filed the documents bedsides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 for is appreciation in this case.

4.       In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 submitted its written version along with the judgment of the Honorable 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.1 remained exparte.

5.       The written version of the opposite party No.2 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 is in distress due to unforeseen changes in physical policies of R.B.I. and other factors and its is brought to the notice of this Honorable Forum in the Company Petition No.201/2002 filed by the opposite party No.1 before the Honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.  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 Honorable High Court of Karnataka observed that on 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 the cases filed against the opposite party No.1 including National State and District Fora shall stand abated.  In view of the said orders, which are self explanatory and the repayment scheme as detailed in the said orders (Ex.B1) as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.       In support of its case the opposite party No.2 filed the true copy of the Judgment of the honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Company Petition No.201/2002 and is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case.

7.       Hence, the point for consideration whether the complainant has made out deficiency of the opposite parties towards he and thereby her entitleness to the reliefs sought.

8.       As there is no dispute about taking of the said “Secured redeemable non-convertible debentures” by the complainant which are issued by the Company (opposite party No.1).  The Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of debenture certificate No.HCC.10746 dated 01-02-2002 with 33 shares each at the rate of Rs.1,000/- with 10.5 percent interest per annum and the redemption period was 12 months, with redemption date as 01-02-2003 and its maturity value was Rs.36,636/-.  The Ex.A2 is the legal notice given by the complainant’s counsel on 19-10-2004 to the opposite party no.1 and requested him to refund the matured value of the said debentures together with interest over the maturity value which are submitted by her client to opposite party No.2 and with costs of the notice Rs.300/- within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice.  The Ex.A3 is the letter dated 21-10-2004 to the legal notice of the complainant’s counsel (Ex.A2) informing that the matter was with the Honorable High court of Karnataka at Bangalore for its judgment, in CP.No.201/2002 and they hope that the judgment would be delivered by the said Honorable High Court within a week and further informed that the repayment should be as per the judgment orders of the said Honorable High Court.

9.       After taking into consideration the Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and the Ex.B1 for their appreciation in this case and in view of the true copy of the Judgment order of the Honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the Company Petition No.201/2002 (Ex.B1) which was filed by the opposite party No.1 though the opposite party No.2 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.1) 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.

10.     In the result, in view of the above discussion and particularly the true copy of the Judgment Order of the Honorable High court of Karnataka at Bangalore, (Ex.B1) the complaint of the complainant is not entertain-able in this Forum and is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 11^th day of March, 2005.

MEMBER                                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          Is the Xerox copy of Debenture Certificate No.HCC-10746

dated 01-02-2003.

Ex.A2          Is the Legal Notice issued by complainant’s counsel to the

opposite party No.2 dated 19-10-2004.               

Ex.A3          Is the Letter dated 21-10-2004 to the Legal Notice of the complainant’s counsel.

List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1          Judgment of the Honorable High Court of Karnataka in Company Petition No.201/2002.

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER