BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

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

And

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

Thursday the 14^th day of June, 2007

C.C.No.13/2007

1. Anumula Venkata Ramanaiah,

S/o A. Krishna Murthy, Cultiviation.

1. Anumula Subbalakshmi,W/o A.Krishna Murthy,

Residents of H.No. 27-75,Chinna Market, Kurnool.                                            ... COMPLAINANTS

Verses

1. The Managing Director,

orepen Laboratories Limited, 416-418,AntrikshBhavan,22,Kasturiba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi-110 001.

2)     T.S. Rao,   S/o Not Know,

   Sharebroker, 62-145, Chidambaram Rao Seteet, Kurnool.                      ... OPPOSITE PARTIES

        This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of               Sri. B. Rama Subba Reddy and K. Lokeswar Reddy, Advocates, Kurnool for Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 Inperson and Opposite Party No.2 call exparte upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

(As per Smt. C. Preethi,  Member)

1. This Consumer Case of the Complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction on Opposite Parties to pay maturity amount of Rs.28,103/- with 24% interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
2. The gist of the complaint of the Complainants is that the Complainant and his wife jointly invested a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 19-08-2002 with Opposite Party No.1 and a deposit receipt bearing No. DELDX00207N was issued by Opposite Party No.1 with maturity dated to 30-07-2005 and the amount payable on maturity is 28,103/-.  Even after surrendering the deposit receipt on             14-12-2005 the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay the maturity, being vexed with Complainant addressed letter dated 20-02-2006 to which there was no reply.  Therefore, the Complainant was constrained to file this case for redressal.
3. The Complainants in support of their case relied on the following documents viz; (1) True copy of cumulative deposit receipt dated 19-08-2002 (2) Reverse of Ex.A1 with discharge signature of the depositors (3) Office copy of letter dated 14-12-2005 of the Complainant under which the discharge cumulative deposit was sent. (4) Postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment            (5) Office copy of letter dated 20-02-2006 along with certificate of posting            (6) True copy of letter dated 13-09-2005 issued by Central Bank of India in favour of Opposite Party No.2, besides to the sworn affidavit of the Complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 for its 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 remained absent through out the case proceedings and the Opposite Party No.1 informs through its letter dated          01-07-2006 that the company law board has ordered reschedule for payment of fixed deposits enclosing there to the copy of company law board award and seeks for the dismissal of Complainant.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought against the opposite parties?
6. The Ex.A1 is the attested xerox of Deposit Receipt No.DELDXO2207N envisaging its issual on receipt of an investment of Rs.20,000/- from complainants for a period of 36 months at 11.5% interest  for a maturity amount of Rs.28,103/- payable to the complainant by 30-07-2005 by Opposite Party No.1 company .
7. The Ex.A2 is the reverse of Ex.A1 with the discharging signatures of the Complainants (depositors) for payment of maturity amount.
8.  The Ex.A3 is the office copy of letter dated 14-12-2005 envisages the submission of original deposit receipt of Ex.A1 to Opposite Party No.1 and the Ex.A4 are the postal receipts and acknowledgments for transmission of deposit receipt reffered above, under a registered posting.
9.  The stand taken by the opposite party No.1, vide the material he has sent into this case proceedings, is that the Hon’ble company law board vide its order dated:19.08.2003 has fixed repayments dates for the fixed deposit of Rs.2001 to  Rs. 50,000 in a period of four years commences by the first payment at the end of first  year from the date of maturity 15%, at the end of second year 20%, at the end of third year 25%, and the residuary balance of 40% at the end of 4^th year of maturity.
10. Hence, the further point remaining for consideration is as to the effect of said company law board order on the claim of the complainants:?
11.  The decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Prakash Wadhwa Vs Classical Global Securities Limited, reported in (IV) 2003-CPJ page 37(NC) holds the complainant’s not participated in the proceedings before company law board are entitled to file complaint before the Fora and the order dismissing execution sought on non compliance of order is legally erroneous.
12. Neither any material is placed by the opposite party nor any participation of this complainant appears in the said company law board order by deciding the question there in.  Hence the said order of company law board stands in any manner hurdling this case proceedings initiated by the complainant.
13. The   company law board order provides  the opposite party No.1 company to raise Rs.5lakhs to 9 lakhs per month,  limiting to an amount            Rs.1 crore in a span of one year, to meet the hardship cases like oldage,  senior citizen, medical, marriage etc.
14. The complainant in the present case is said to be of 61 years old.  It is further stated in the Sworn Affidavit of the complainant, for the first time the opposite party No.1 has informed as to the company law board order in answer to the notice of this forum as to this case of complainant, keeping silent all through to the letters and reminders of the complainant.  This fact is not disputed, by the opposite party from the circumstances appearing in the record. If the opposite party No.1 is having any bonafides and sincerity in its conduct into spirit and sense of the said Company Law Board Order it would not have hesitated in keeping informed of the said Company Law Board Order dated        19-08-2003 to the complainant in response the submission of Ex.A1 for the refund of mature amount Vide Ex.A3 and reminders of the request for the same vide Ex.A5 and it would have sent the maturity amount taking into consideration the age of the  complainant meeting the same from the amount  of Rs.9lakhs earmarked for hardship cases and keeping itself away from the proceedings of this  case in this forum.
15. Hence, in any way there being any bonafides in the conduct of the opposite party No.1 towards its obligation of paying mature amount of deposit receipt and that conduct as amounts into its deficiencies of service in releasing of mature amount to deposit holder, as a financial institution inviting deposits for payment with interest on maturity the opposite party No.1 remaining liable to make good of the claim of the complainant.
16. In the absence of any material showing the opposite party No2 as agent of the opposite party No1 in its business of processing and the investments inviting depositors, the liability the opposite party No2 remains hardly to the claim of the complainant and hence the case against opposite party No2 is dismissed.
17. As a liability of the opposite party No.1 and its deficiencies of services towards  the complainant in payment of the mature amount is made out and the said lapsive conduct on the part of the opposite party No.1 in not responding properly to the complainant as caused mental agony besides driving the complainant for its remedy to this forum the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay to the complainant the maturity amount – along with contracted rate of interest till realization and also an amount of Rs.2000/- as costs and  Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony.
18. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 for compliance of the supra stated award within a month the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Computer Operator transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 14^th day of June, 2007.

        MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Complainant: Nil                                        For the Opposite Party: Nil

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1 True copy of cumulative deposit receipt dated 19-08-2002

Ex.A2 Reverse of Ex.A1 with discharge signature of the depositors

Ex.A3 Office copy of letter dated 14-12-2005 of the Complainant under which  the discharge cumulative deposit was sent

Ex.A4 Postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment

Ex.A5 Office copy of letter dated 20-02-2006 along with certificate of posting

Ex.A5 True copy of letter dated 13-09-2005 issued by Central Bank of India in favour of Opposite Party No.2,

List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-  Nil

        MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. Sri. B. Rama Subba Reddy and K. Lokeswar Reddy, Advocates, Kurnool.

2.  Opposite Party No.1.

3.  Opposite Party No.2.          

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties: