Complainant:

Sri. Goutham S. Talreja
S/o Sri. Suresh Talreja
No.127, 6th Cross
Lower Palace Orchards
Sadashivanagar
Bangalore- 560 003


/vs/



Opposite Party:

Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Ltd.,
(STM)
No.2/21, First Street
Vishwanataha Puram Main Road
Korabakam
Cheenai-24

And

Sterling Holiday Resort Ltd.,
No.4, 28th Main
3rd Cross, 1st Floor
R.K. Plaza
Bangalore- 560 052

O R D E R

SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for compensation of Rs.1,62,377/- with interest, cots and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had applied and joined STM Tech Equity Land Owners Scheme of the Op vide Application No.109501 and received the Land Owners Certificate dated 13/08/1996 bearing No.1776. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.42,825/- from 31/08/1996 to 30/05/1997 and there is no response from the OP. The complainant has been sending Repeated Letters enquiring about the Land Registration without any reply form the Op vide Letters dated 12/03/99 and 01/05/08. The complainant was therefore constrained to issue a legal notice dated 05/06/2008 by RPAD to the Ops which was received by him without compliances. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Notice was sent to OP under RPAD, the OP sent its version through Post with copies of documents. Inspite of sufficient time granted it failed to submit its affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the complainant and written arguments of the complainant was submitted. As no one submitted arguments on behalf of Op, it was permitted to submit its written arguments within three days.

When we peruse the version sent by the OP, it has admitted the transactions with the complainant. According to Op due to prohibition imposed by the Government through its Organ SIBI, OP business was very much crippled. According to OP, CA No.555/08 is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Madras and they have appointed retired judge of High Court as Chairman and Scrutinizer of the Postal ballet and belated process and directed the company to circulate the scheme of compromise/arrangements between the company and this is unsecured customer creditors for the purpose of considering the compromise proposal. When we peruse the documents produced by the OP along with its version, company matter is pending before Hon’ble High Court, Madras in respect of same subject matter. When the matter is pending before the higher authorities on same subject matter in respect of compromise or arrangements proposal in respect of creditors, this forum can not pass any orders on the same subject matter. The complainant is at liberty to approach Hon’ble High Court, Madras in the same petition before the Hon’ble High Court or the complainant has to wait till the disposal of the Appeal before Ho’ble High Court. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is closed. No order as to cost,