COMPLAINT FILED ON: 14-12-2010 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 10-11-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 10TH NOVEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2951/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. T.S.Krishnamurthy,<br /> S/o T.K.Subramanya Sastry,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> “Skanda”, No. 895/1,<br /> 14th Cross, <br /> Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 086.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri M.R.Shashidhar <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Vice President (Operations) M/s. Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Ltd., New No.2, Vishwanathapuram, Kodambakkam, <br /> Chennai-600 024.<br /> <br /> Ex-parte<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.1,34,500/- with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> OP a is company incorporated under Companies Act 1956. OP made wide publication of its scheme of developing Teak Trees from out of the amount collected from the investors. Ownership of trees will be sold to public through an investment unit named as “Teakquity”. As per the scheme complainant applied for the investment in the said Teakquity plan on the receipt of the application OP vide is letter 01.06.1995 informed the complainant that he has completed all payments towards the scheme. The receipt issued by OP dated 31.05.1995 and letter are produced. On receiving the entire payments OP issued land owners Teakquity certificate dated 12.09.1995 bearing No.A1303 for 20 trees in Gandarvakotti plantation stating maturity date as 20.09.2014. Subsequently on 09.08.1996 OP sent a copy of the registered sale deed in the name of the complainant and also informed that original sale deed pertaining to STM certificate No.A1303 will be returned by OP during the tenure of the scheme period further OP undertaken to return the original documents to the certificate holder at the end of 20th year. Complainant is entitled to received the interim returns at the rate of Rs.1,125/- per tree invested at the end of 6th year from the date of joining the scheme and Rs.5,500/- per tree at the end of 12th year from the date of joining the scheme. Interim returns shall be paid by the OP the investor by way cheque or DD within 3 months from the date of expiry of the said 6 years and 12 years as per the terms of the scheme. Complainant is entitled to receive the interim returns at the rate of Rs.1,125/- per tree for 20 trees i.e. Rs.24,500/-. The said amount became due on 30.06.2000. On 23.03.2000 complainant wrote a letter to OP requesting to pay said interim returns. There was no response. On 07.10.2006 complainant caused legal notice to OP. On 26.10.2006 OP in its reply apologized for inconvenience caused and made on offer of settlement. The option being to convert the Teakquity into timeshare of their sterling holiday resorts (India) Limited and asked for payment of Rs.1,000/- administrative charges alternate option was to take the consumer durable products. On 12.12.2006 complainant sent another notice seeking for the clarification with regard to the offer made by the OP. There was no response. On 26.09.2009 complainant caused reminder notice requesting OP to settle the claim of Rs.24,500/- + 1,10,000/- = 1,34,500/- interest at 15% from 30.06.2000. Inspite of receipt of reminder notice there was no response from OP. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.<br /> <br /> 3. OP sent its version through post mainly contending that OP has received only notices not received the complaint copy. Hence not traversed into the allegation of the complaint and filing general reply and reserves it right to file a detail version OP admits that it has promoted various agro related schemes for planting teak tress and selling them in units toits investors. OP would grow and nurture teak tress on behalf of its investors for a period of 20 years and supply of wood for each unit or alternatively sell the said wood and pay the sale proceeds to the investors at the scheme period. Final returns are paid by cutting down the teak tress planted in between two teak trees allotted to the investors. Further it is contended that due to the prohibitions imposed by the Government through its organ SEBI business of OP from very much crippled and could not continue the business; there is constraint in its cash flow, OP is unable to fulfill the commitment as per terms and conditions. Under the circumstances OP filed C.A 407 and 408 before Hon’ble High Court, Madras, for considering the scheme of arrangement/compromise with its details in the company. Hon’ble High Court of Madras filed its order dated 29.04.1999 pending consideration of the said scheme granted an order of stay of all legal proceedings initiated against the company, under section 391(6) of Companies Act 1956. Copy of order is produced further Hon’ble High Court Madras for appointment of expert namely Sri. J.B.Lal a forest expert to give report to the conditions of the plantations of the OP Company and promoted to company to circulate the information along with investors. Further it is contended by the OP that complainant is not a consumer there is no element of service for supply of material. Complaint is not maintainable; Complainant is not entitled for any relief sort; Transaction is relating to immovable property. Transaction is governed by the terms and conditions of the certificate itself. As per the risk factors in the event of legislature enacting any law whereby cutting of tress is banned contracts becomes impossible of performance. The company shall be discharged of its obligation under the scheme. Hence no claim is maintainable against OP; this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per the agreement entered between the parties it was agreed that Chennai Court would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit / complaint between the parties. In C.A.555/2008 Hon’ble High court of Madras appointed justice K.P.Sivasubramanian, retired judge High Court as chairman of the Company to circulate the scheme of compromise/Arrangement between the company and its unsecured creditors. Accordingly K.P.Sivasubramanians filed his report to the court on 11.07.2008 OP is awaiting order of the Hon’ble High Court Madras. Among other grounds OP prayed from dismissal of the complaint or to keep the proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of the matter by the Court of Madras.<br /> <br /> 4. Arguments on complainant side heard.<br /> <br /> 5. Point for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable;<br /> <br /> 6. We record our findings negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. OP along with the version has sent the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Company application Nos. 407 and 408 of 1999 at para 13 of the said order the Hon’ble High Court directed as under:<br /> <br /> “Pending further consideration of these application, commencement or continuation of any suit or proceeding against the company except the criminal proceedings, if already initiated is stayed. It will, however be open to anyone, who is desirous of instituted the proceedings to move this court for modification of this order, if the circumstances warrant.”<br /> <br /> The complainant herein has not moved the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for modification of the said order on sought permission to file this complaint seeking relief against the OP. Therefore without leave of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, In view of the said order the present complaint is not maintainable. <br /> <br /> 8. Along with the version OP has sent other copies of the orders of the State Commission at Vijayawada in F.A. No.179/2007 and copy of the order sheet in complaint no.1790/2002 before this forum. Wherein the complaint was closed in view of the proceedings pending before Hon’ble High Court of Madras company application No.407 and 408. The copies of order passed by Consumer Forum, Hyderabad and in complaint No.1065/2004 and copies of the orders passed by other forums clearly reveals that in view of the matter pending before the Hon’ble High court of madras in the company applications report above complaint are dismissed. Accordingly we are proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint filed by the complainant dismissed as not maintainable. Under these circumstance parties to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of November 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> gm. <br /> <br />