State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Managing Director, vs Thomaskutty.P.C, on 25 October, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/428 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/11/2012 in Case No. 17/12 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. INTEGRATED FINANCE SOTH BOAG CHENNAI THAMIL NADU ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. THOMASKUTTY KOZHIMALA,VALLAMKULLAM PATHANAMTHITTA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.428/2013
JUDGMENT DATED:25.10.2013
(Against the order in CC.17/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, dtd: 29.11.2012)
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
Managing director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
: APPELLANT
Earlier at
"Vairams", 112 Thyagaraya Road,
Chennai-600017.
(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
Thomaskutty.P.C,
Purathayil House,
Kozhimala.P.O, Vallamkulam(Via), : RESPONDENT
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist-689 541.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party in CC.17/12, on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 29, 2012.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
The case of the complainant is that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed deposit with the opposite party Integrated Finance Company on 30.04.2002. Opposite party has agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the date of receipt. The deposit is for five years. Ext.A1 is the copy of the fixed deposit receipt. Even after the date of maturity the opposite party did not repay the amount. Therefore complainant has filed this complaint.
3. The opposite party is the M/s Integrated Finance Company Limited, Chennai represented by its Managing Director. He in his version contended thus:- The complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has to approach Civil Court for suitable remedy. Opposite party company has filed application before the High Court of Madras for approval of a scheme of arrangement between the parties under section 391 of Companies Act. On the direction of the High Court a meeting of the deposit holders and the opposite party was convened and in that a resolution was passed and for resolutions were placed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for processing the scheme of arrangement. So the complainant is bound by those resolutions passed. Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed.
4. No oral evidence was adduced from both sides. Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B7 were produced by the opposite parties before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that complainant is entitled to the amount deposited and allowed the complaint. The opposite parties have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. When the appeal came up for admission today the counsel for the appellant is heard.
6. It is admitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the appellant company and even after the date of maturity opposite parties did not pay the amount. Exts.A1 is the copy of the fixed deposit receipt. The case of the opposite party is that proceedings under the Companies Act is pending before the High Court of Madras and also before the Apex Court and that opposite parties and 3/4th of the majority of the deposit holders passed a resolution to the effect that 79% of the value of the deposit to be paid to the shareholders. But no stay order has been produced by the opposite parties to show that these proceedings are stayed. Therefore the Forum is perfectly justified in allowing the complaint. The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.
7. The Forum has directed the opposite party to pay the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and a cost of Rs.5000/-. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no ground to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI] PRESIDENT