The Managing Director, IDBI Bank Ltd., V/S Nagaraj S/o. Suganaguda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/81

Nagaraj S/o. Suganaguda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, IDBI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. B.V. Patil

26 Feb 2010

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/81

Nagaraj S/o. Suganaguda Basavaraj S/o. Sugangouda						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Managing Director, IDBI Bank Ltd., The Branch Manager, IDBI Bank, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by complainants No- 1 Nagaraj and complainant No-2 Basavaraj against the opposites No- 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards their respective bonds with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with interest. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, their father purchased two IDBI Deep Discount Bonds from opposites in the year 1996 by paying Rs. 5,000/- towards each bond bearing Nos. 03378804 & 03378805. As per the terms and conditions if the complainants intends to redeem their respective bonds on 01-08-2000 then opposites bank has to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to each bond, if complainants intends to redeem each bond on 01-12-06 then, opposite bank has to refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each, if they intends to redeem the bonds in the month of September 2010 then, opposite bank has to refund an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards each bond, complainant approached opposite by intending to redeem the said bonds in the month of February 2009, but not intended to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as per the terms and conditions towards each bond they shown their intention to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only towards each bond, they requested several times, but they shown their negligence for their requests, they are ready to pay lesser interest at the rate of 3.5% p.a. but not as per the terms and conditions of the bonds, accordingly they filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case. Opposite No-2 filed written version and opposite No-1 adopted the same written version. The brief facts of the written version filed by them are that, complainants are not consumers their complaint is not maintainable, there is no purchase of goods or service availed by them from the opposites. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The IDBI Deep Discount Bonds 1996 was having face value of Rs. 5,300/- with a condition of premature withdrawal/redemption as noted on the face value of the bonds IDBI, has right to exercise call options to redeem the bonds before maturity in the similar way investor/bond holder also an option to redeem the bond. As per the wide advertisements given in leading newspaper on 10-05-2000 about the call option and published in Kannada Prabha, Hindu Dinamani etc., it clearly informed that no interest will be payable on the bonds beyond 01-08-2000, it also issued reminder notice in the month of September-2000 by requesting the bond holders to submit duly discharged bonds and obtain redemption amount. In spite of it, these complainants have not surrendered the bonds for redemption, as such they themselves responsible for their in action and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with exemplary cost. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainants proves that, their father purchase two IDBI Deep Discount Bonds in the year 1996 of the face value of Rs. 5,000/- and as per the terms and conditions of the bonds they approached opposites for to redeem those bonds and requested to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/- each bond in the month of February 2009, but opposites shown their negligence in making payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards each bond with interest and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the Negative. (2) In the Negative.. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Assistant General Manager of opposite No-2, was filed he was noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-15 are marked. 7. We have taken note of the entire case of complainants No- 1 & 2 as pleaded in this complaint and evidence of the parties and documentary evidences filed by them. We have disposed of this case based on two legal points which are un-noticed by opposites. 8. It is the case of complainants No- 1 & 2 that, their father purchased two IDBI Deep Discount Bonds in the year 1996 by paying Rs. 5,000/- each and thereafter he died, if it is so, then the amount under two bonds is pertaining to the property of their deceased father Sugangouda which is divisible, according to Hindu Succession Act of 1956 among the class-1 legal heirs of Sugangouda. In the instant case complainants No- 1 & 2 have not disclosed that, they are the only legal heirs of deceased Sugangowda and not placed their claim by producing succession certificate to that effect. Under such circumstances the learned advocate for complainants No- 1 & 2 not able to convince us as to how these complainants only entitled for such claim in the property of their deceased father. This is a legal issue to be dealt based on the provisions of Hindu Succession Act of 1956. Mere non-taking such contention by opposites in their written version is not sufficient to accept the version of this complainant. In the absence of those material pleadings complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 is not maintainable. 9. The second legal ground which is also un-noticed by the opposites is that, whether joint complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 in the light of the pleadings is maintainable under the C.P. Act. 10. We have raised such contentions before the learned advocate for complainant at the time of arguments advanced by him, he tried to convince us based on the meaning and definition of complainant as defined U/sec. 2(1)(b)(4) of C.P. Act and in reference to Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. In view of the submissions made before us by the learned advocate for complainant, we have reproduced provision 2(1)(b)(4) of C.P. Act which reads as under: (1) Section 2(1)(b)(4) one or more consumers, whether they are numerous consumers having the same interest. (2) Another relevant provisions under the C.P. Act is section 13 (6) wherein the reference was made in respect of the first schedule of order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. 11. In the light of the above said provisions and submissions made, we have to see the present case of the complainants as to whether the joint complaint filed by them is maintainable are not. 12. As we have already stated above, this fact is un-noticed by the opposites other wise we can say that, opposite not took such contentions in their written versions, however we have not debarred to take the said legal point for our consideration. As stated under 2(1)(b)(4) of C.P. Act and under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC a numerous consumers may file a complaint or one can file complaint on behalf of others only when all the consumers are having same interest. Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC also says same fact to file a suit by one or more persons who are having same interest in the property. Similar principle is also applicable to defend the suit. It is the specific case of complainant No-1 that Ex.P-1 which is IDBI Deep Discount Bond is in his name. Ex.P-2 the similar type of another bond stands in the name of complainant No-2. The claim of each of them are different based on their respective different documents at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. When such being the case of each of them then, how we can say that, both the complainants are having same interest in the amount claimed by them, we are of the view there is no similar interest or common interest or same interest of the complainants No- 1 & 2 to file joint complaint they are having their own separate interest based on their respective documents, as such we are of the view that, this joint complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 who are not having same interest in the property cannot file one complaint jointly and thereby this joint complaint filed by them is not maintainable under law, accordingly we declined to accept the submissions and clarifications made by the learned advocate for complainants. 13. In the instant case opposites No- 1 & 2 have raised so many contentions under the C.P. Act, we are of the view that, all those contentions which have taken by the opposites in their written version is not necessary to deal with in view of our above discussions and conclusions. Hence not discussed and we answered Point No-1 in Negative. 14. As we discussed in the above said Paras that, the present complaint is not maintainable under law then they are not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in their complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos 1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The joint complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-02-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by complainants No- 1 Nagaraj and complainant No-2 Basavaraj against the opposites No- 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards their respective bonds with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with interest. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, their father purchased two IDBI Deep Discount Bonds from opposites in the year 1996 by paying Rs. 5,000/- towards each bond bearing Nos. 03378804 & 03378805. As per the terms and conditions if the complainants intends to redeem their respective bonds on 01-08-2000 then opposites bank has to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to each bond, if complainants intends to redeem each bond on 01-12-06 then, opposite bank has to refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each, if they intends to redeem the bonds in the month of September 2010 then, opposite bank has to refund an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards each bond, complainant approached opposite by intending to redeem the said bonds in the month of February 2009, but not intended to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as per the terms and conditions towards each bond they shown their intention to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only towards each bond, they requested several times, but they shown their negligence for their requests, they are ready to pay lesser interest at the rate of 3.5% p.a. but not as per the terms and conditions of the bonds, accordingly they filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case. Opposite No-2 filed written version and opposite No-1 adopted the same written version. The brief facts of the written version filed by them are that, complainants are not consumers their complaint is not maintainable, there is no purchase of goods or service availed by them from the opposites. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The IDBI Deep Discount Bonds 1996 was having face value of Rs. 5,300/- with a condition of premature withdrawal/redemption as noted on the face value of the bonds IDBI, has right to exercise call options to redeem the bonds before maturity in the similar way investor/bond holder also an option to redeem the bond. As per the wide advertisements given in leading newspaper on 10-05-2000 about the call option and published in Kannada Prabha, Hindu Dinamani etc., it clearly informed that no interest will be payable on the bonds beyond 01-08-2000, it also issued reminder notice in the month of September-2000 by requesting the bond holders to submit duly discharged bonds and obtain redemption amount. In spite of it, these complainants have not surrendered the bonds for redemption, as such they themselves responsible for their in action and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with exemplary cost. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainants proves that, their father purchase two IDBI Deep Discount Bonds in the year 1996 of the face value of Rs. 5,000/- and as per the terms and conditions of the bonds they approached opposites for to redeem those bonds and requested to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/- each bond in the month of February 2009, but opposites shown their negligence in making payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards each bond with interest and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the Negative. (2) In the Negative.. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Assistant General Manager of opposite No-2, was filed he was noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-15 are marked. 7. We have taken note of the entire case of complainants No- 1 & 2 as pleaded in this complaint and evidence of the parties and documentary evidences filed by them. We have disposed of this case based on two legal points which are un-noticed by opposites. 8. It is the case of complainants No- 1 & 2 that, their father purchased two IDBI Deep Discount Bonds in the year 1996 by paying Rs. 5,000/- each and thereafter he died, if it is so, then the amount under two bonds is pertaining to the property of their deceased father Sugangouda which is divisible, according to Hindu Succession Act of 1956 among the class-1 legal heirs of Sugangouda. In the instant case complainants No- 1 & 2 have not disclosed that, they are the only legal heirs of deceased Sugangowda and not placed their claim by producing succession certificate to that effect. Under such circumstances the learned advocate for complainants No- 1 & 2 not able to convince us as to how these complainants only entitled for such claim in the property of their deceased father. This is a legal issue to be dealt based on the provisions of Hindu Succession Act of 1956. Mere non-taking such contention by opposites in their written version is not sufficient to accept the version of this complainant. In the absence of those material pleadings complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 is not maintainable. 9. The second legal ground which is also un-noticed by the opposites is that, whether joint complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 in the light of the pleadings is maintainable under the C.P. Act. 10. We have raised such contentions before the learned advocate for complainant at the time of arguments advanced by him, he tried to convince us based on the meaning and definition of complainant as defined U/sec. 2(1)(b)(4) of C.P. Act and in reference to Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. In view of the submissions made before us by the learned advocate for complainant, we have reproduced provision 2(1)(b)(4) of C.P. Act which reads as under: (1) Section 2(1)(b)(4) one or more consumers, whether they are numerous consumers having the same interest. (2) Another relevant provisions under the C.P. Act is section 13 (6) wherein the reference was made in respect of the first schedule of order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. 11. In the light of the above said provisions and submissions made, we have to see the present case of the complainants as to whether the joint complaint filed by them is maintainable are not. 12. As we have already stated above, this fact is un-noticed by the opposites other wise we can say that, opposite not took such contentions in their written versions, however we have not debarred to take the said legal point for our consideration. As stated under 2(1)(b)(4) of C.P. Act and under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC a numerous consumers may file a complaint or one can file complaint on behalf of others only when all the consumers are having same interest. Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC also says same fact to file a suit by one or more persons who are having same interest in the property. Similar principle is also applicable to defend the suit. It is the specific case of complainant No-1 that Ex.P-1 which is IDBI Deep Discount Bond is in his name. Ex.P-2 the similar type of another bond stands in the name of complainant No-2. The claim of each of them are different based on their respective different documents at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. When such being the case of each of them then, how we can say that, both the complainants are having same interest in the amount claimed by them, we are of the view there is no similar interest or common interest or same interest of the complainants No- 1 & 2 to file joint complaint they are having their own separate interest based on their respective documents, as such we are of the view that, this joint complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 who are not having same interest in the property cannot file one complaint jointly and thereby this joint complaint filed by them is not maintainable under law, accordingly we declined to accept the submissions and clarifications made by the learned advocate for complainants. 13. In the instant case opposites No- 1 & 2 have raised so many contentions under the C.P. Act, we are of the view that, all those contentions which have taken by the opposites in their written version is not necessary to deal with in view of our above discussions and conclusions. Hence not discussed and we answered Point No-1 in Negative. 14. As we discussed in the above said Paras that, the present complaint is not maintainable under law then they are not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in their complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos 1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The joint complaint filed by the complainants No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-02-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member.