State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Integrated Finance Company Ltd., vs 1. Leelamma Thomas, on 30 May, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/451 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/11/2012 in Case No. 53/2012 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. INTEGRATE FINANCE CO. LTD ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. LEELAMA THOMAS ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.451/2013
JUDGMENT DATED:30.05.2014
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
R-10, 2nd floor, South Boag Road
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
2. Mr. George Kuruvila,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar, : APPELLANTS
Chennai-600 017.
Earlier at
"Vairams", Thyagaraya Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai.
(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
1. Leelamma Thomas,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O,
Pathanamthitta District.
2. Thomas C.I,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
3. Abraham Thomas,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O,
Pathanamthitta Dist. : RESPONDENTS
4. Joseph Thomas,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
5. Suni Abraham,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv: Sri.V.K. Mohankumar)
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.53/12, 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.12,84,000/- in the form of bond with the opposite parties Integrated Finance Company on 07.05.2008. Opposite parties have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of taking the bonds and a cost of Rs.5000/-. The deposit matured on 24.08.2011. Ext.A1 to A14 are copy of the said bond. Even after the date of maturity the opposite parties did not repay the amount. Therefore complainant has filed this complaint.
3. 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. The 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 parties were convened and in that a resolution was passed and the 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 to A14 were 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. In this appeal respondent/complainant remained absent.
6. Heard the counsel for the appellants.
The only point arises for consideration is:- Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
7. It is admitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.12,84,000/- with the appellant company and even after the date of maturity opposite party did not pay the amount. 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 party 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 party 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.
8. The Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay the fixed deposit amount of Rs.12,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 11% 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 merit in this 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 [ SRI. V. V. JOSE] MEMBER