State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Mcs Limited ( Unit Ifgi Bonds), New ... vs Gudla Anantha Suryanarayana, ... on 25 March, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 653/2012 against CC 90/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam. Between : M/s. MCS Limited ( Unit IFGI Bonds) Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Registrars, Sri Venkatesh Bhavan, W-40, Okhala Industrial Area, Phase II New Delhi 110 020 .. Appellant/opposite party And 1. Gudla Anantha Suryanarayana, S/o late Lakshmi Narayana, aged 53 years 2. Gudla Lakshmi, W/o Anantha Suryanarayana Aged 42 yearfs, Both R/o H. No. 11-12-48, Kalinga road, OPP. SBI Colony, Srikakulam town and district. . Respondents/complainants Counsel for the Appellant : Mr N. Matheu Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. A. Rama Rao Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Monday, the Twenty Fifth Day of March Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party as against the orders dated 01.02.2012 in CC 90/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants are the registered holders of IFGI Millionaire Bonds bearing No. Folio No. 5628720 certificate No. 447689 in the name of the first complainant and Folio No. 5628725 certificate no. 447694 in the name of the 2nd complainant in the year 1996 with the opposite party and the OP issued bonds and the amounts were paid at the time of enrolling with the OP through their Agent. On intimation in December, 2009 for early redemption of bonds, the complainant submitted original bonds on 10.12.2009 and in spite of that OP sent a notice dt. 20.02.2010 to send the original bonds. He got issued a legal notice informing about the submission of bonds etc and enclosed copy of acknowledgement and thereafter also he got issued regd. Notice on 17.09.2010 along with Photostat copies of the documents submitted earlier to OP kept quiet which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service and thus he filed the complaint to direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards value of the bonds with interest @ 18% PA , Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1000/- towards correspondence charges and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. The opposite party though served with notice, called absent
4. The complainant filed evidence affidavit reiterating his pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A7 were marked on his behalf and no documents were filed on behalf of the opposite party.
5. Having heard the complainant and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.3,000/-.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful OP filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum erred in granting Rs. One lakh towards bond amounts and that the appellant is only a facilitator and that the cheques bearing No. 433814 and 433818 for Rs. 13,108/-
each were encashed by the complainants and Rs.1,500/-towards advocate fee and that the presence IFGI Millionaire Bonds who issued bonds under Ex. A2 are necessary without who the actual amount due could not be ascertained and that the order of the District Forum is devoid of merit and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
7. Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?
9. Admittedly, the impugned order is an exparte order. The case of the complainant is that they are registered holders of IFGI Millionaire bonds bearing No. Folio No. 5628720 certificate No. 447689 in the name of the first complainant and Folio No. 5628725 certificate no. 447694 in the name of the 2nd complainant in the year 1996 with the opposite party and the OP issued bonds and the amounts were paid at the time of enrolling with the OP through their Agent. The further contention of the complainant is that the said original bonds were submitted on 10.12.2009 with required application for redemption through courier service and then the Op issued a notice 20.2.2010 calling upon them to send original bonds and on receipt of the said notice the complainant was astonished and was subjected to mental agony. Wheres as in the grounds of appeal the Op pleaded that the appellant is only a facilitator and that the cheques bearing No. 433814 and 433818 for Rs. 13,108/- each were encashed by the complainants and that the presence IFGI Millionaire Bonds who issued bonds under Ex. A2 are necessary without who the actual amount due could not be ascertained. In view of the contentions and rival of the contentions of the parties to the proceedings and as valuable rights of the parties are involved we feel that it is necessary to pass order on merit. According to the OP, there was no fault on its side it was set exparte. The basic principle is that no man should be condemned unheard Probably as there was no provision to file a petition to set aside exparte order, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite party. In the circumstances of the case and larger interests of justice we feel that this is a fit case to set the exparte order and remit back the case for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to the OP to filr its written version, evidence affidavit (s) and documents if any. It is needless to say that the complainant can also file additional evidence if he so chooses. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the opposite party.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum under appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the opposite party to file its written version, evidence affidavit (s) and documents, so also, to the complainant to file further evidence if he so chooses.
The parties shall not insist for fresh notice after remand and they shall appear before the District Forum on 25.04.2013. Costs are subject to the decision in the District Forum MEMBER MEMBER DATED :25.03.2013.