Appeal case No.640/2009

Date of institution:13.11.2009

Date of decision :4.12.2009

Bhim Sain son of Shri Ram Saran Dass resident of M/s Ram Saran Dass Bhim Sain, Cloth Merchants, Rampura Phul (Punjab), aged 62 years. ….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7th Floor, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director.

2. Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3. The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

.…Respondents



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.





Argued by: Sh.Rajinder Singh Raj,advocate for appellant.





BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member

Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member



JUDGMENT

4.12.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President





1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation by complainant is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009 whereby his complaint bearing NO.555 of 2009 was allowed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in the following terms ;

“The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,004/- along with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant. They will also pay him Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation. If the above amount is not paid within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay penal interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till its payment.”

2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked one three bedroom type-C house in the proposed Swaran/Rajat Yojna i.e. Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh and deposited a total sum of Rs.10,004/- vide receipt dated 31.12.2003. The officials of the OPs gave verbal assurance that the possession of the house would be handed over by the end of 2007. However, OPs failed to start the construction, therefore, the complainant visited their office and sought refund of the amount but he was put off on one pretext or the other. He also served a legal notice dated 6.3.2009 seeking refund but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs was that the Sahara Rajat Scheme was not floated for providing the housing unit. The complainant misinterpreted its terms and conditions and in fact the scheme provided different opportunities i.e. for purchase of Sahara products to avail different facilities provided by Sahara and also an opportunity for conversion into Sahara City Homes Scheme if the purchaser so desired. It was pleaded that the complainant was advised many times to exercise his option but he did not opt for the said scheme. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- under Sahara Rajat Yojna and not under Sahara City Homes. For the allotment of housing unit it was compulsory for the person to convert his account into Sahara City Homes and there was no time limit in the scheme for the allotment of the plot or to avail services or purchase products and the complainant could avail either of the facilities within a period of 10 years. So, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

4. The learned District Consumer Forum after obtaining evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of admission of this appeal. His sole point is that the District Consumer Forum, though, allowed the complaint, yet failed to award compensation. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this point raised on behalf of appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as he had already been awarded interest @ 8% p.a. on the refundable amount which tallies the rate of interest payable on the fixed deposits. In this case before us a perusal of the impugned order shows that the interest has been awarded since 31.12.2003 i.e. the date of deposit of Rs.10,004/- with OPs. So, keeping in view the interest awarded by the learned District Forum @ 8% p.a. ,we do not find any justification for granting further compensation in addition to the relief already granted by the District Consumer Forum. Moreover, adequate litigation expenses have already been awarded.

6. Thus, taking an overall view, we do not find it a fit case even for admission. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.

Appeal case No.640/2009

Date of institution:13.11.2009

Date of decision :4.12.2009

Bhim Sain son of Shri Ram Saran Dass resident of M/s Ram Saran Dass Bhim Sain, Cloth Merchants, Rampura Phul (Punjab), aged 62 years. ….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7th Floor, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director.

2. Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3. The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

.…Respondents

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.

Argued by: Sh.Rajinder Singh Raj,advocate for appellant.

BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member

Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT

4.12.2009
Justice Pritam Pal, President


1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation by complainant is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009 whereby his complaint bearing NO.555 of 2009 was allowed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in the following terms ;

“The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,004/- along with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant. They will also pay him Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation. If the above amount is not paid within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay penal interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till its payment.”

2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked one three bedroom type-C house in the proposed Swaran/Rajat Yojna i.e. Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh and deposited a total sum of Rs.10,004/- vide receipt dated 31.12.2003. The officials of the OPs gave verbal assurance that the possession of the house would be handed over by the end of 2007. However, OPs failed to start the construction, therefore, the complainant visited their office and sought refund of the amount but he was put off on one pretext or the other. He also served a legal notice dated 6.3.2009 seeking refund but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs was that the Sahara Rajat Scheme was not floated for providing the housing unit. The complainant misinterpreted its terms and conditions and in fact the scheme provided different opportunities i.e. for purchase of Sahara products to avail different facilities provided by Sahara and also an opportunity for conversion into Sahara City Homes Scheme if the purchaser so desired. It was pleaded that the complainant was advised many times to exercise his option but he did not opt for the said scheme. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- under Sahara Rajat Yojna and not under Sahara City Homes. For the allotment of housing unit it was compulsory for the person to convert his account into Sahara City Homes and there was no time limit in the scheme for the allotment of the plot or to avail services or purchase products and the complainant could avail either of the facilities within a period of 10 years. So, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

4. The learned District Consumer Forum after obtaining evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of admission of this appeal. His sole point is that the District Consumer Forum, though, allowed the complaint, yet failed to award compensation. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this point raised on behalf of appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as he had already been awarded interest @ 8% p.a. on the refundable amount which tallies the rate of interest payable on the fixed deposits. In this case before us a perusal of the impugned order shows that the interest has been awarded since 31.12.2003 i.e. the date of deposit of Rs.10,004/- with OPs. So, keeping in view the interest awarded by the learned District Forum @ 8% p.a. ,we do not find any justification for granting further compensation in addition to the relief already granted by the District Consumer Forum. Moreover, adequate litigation expenses have already been awarded.

6. Thus, taking an overall view, we do not find it a fit case even for admission. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.

Dear Mr Singh

Mine case is the similar to the one as has been decided below, invested Rs 10,004 each for two units in Dec 2003 but nothing has come up from Sahara after that. Can you please help me to get the refunds.

Saurabh Jain
09711226266
saur_jai@yahoo.com

Originally Posted by adv.singh

Appeal case No.640/2009

Date of institution:13.11.2009

Date of decision :4.12.2009

Bhim Sain son of Shri Ram Saran Dass resident of M/s Ram Saran Dass Bhim Sain, Cloth Merchants, Rampura Phul (Punjab), aged 62 years. ….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7th Floor, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director.

2. Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3. The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

.…Respondents



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.





Argued by: Sh.Rajinder Singh Raj,advocate for appellant.





BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member

Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member



JUDGMENT

4.12.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President





1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation by complainant is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009 whereby his complaint bearing NO.555 of 2009 was allowed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in the following terms ;

“The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,004/- along with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant. They will also pay him Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation. If the above amount is not paid within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay penal interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till its payment.”

2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked one three bedroom type-C house in the proposed Swaran/Rajat Yojna i.e. Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh and deposited a total sum of Rs.10,004/- vide receipt dated 31.12.2003. The officials of the OPs gave verbal assurance that the possession of the house would be handed over by the end of 2007. However, OPs failed to start the construction, therefore, the complainant visited their office and sought refund of the amount but he was put off on one pretext or the other. He also served a legal notice dated 6.3.2009 seeking refund but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs was that the Sahara Rajat Scheme was not floated for providing the housing unit. The complainant misinterpreted its terms and conditions and in fact the scheme provided different opportunities i.e. for purchase of Sahara products to avail different facilities provided by Sahara and also an opportunity for conversion into Sahara City Homes Scheme if the purchaser so desired. It was pleaded that the complainant was advised many times to exercise his option but he did not opt for the said scheme. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- under Sahara Rajat Yojna and not under Sahara City Homes. For the allotment of housing unit it was compulsory for the person to convert his account into Sahara City Homes and there was no time limit in the scheme for the allotment of the plot or to avail services or purchase products and the complainant could avail either of the facilities within a period of 10 years. So, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

4. The learned District Consumer Forum after obtaining evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of admission of this appeal. His sole point is that the District Consumer Forum, though, allowed the complaint, yet failed to award compensation. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this point raised on behalf of appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as he had already been awarded interest @ 8% p.a. on the refundable amount which tallies the rate of interest payable on the fixed deposits. In this case before us a perusal of the impugned order shows that the interest has been awarded since 31.12.2003 i.e. the date of deposit of Rs.10,004/- with OPs. So, keeping in view the interest awarded by the learned District Forum @ 8% p.a. ,we do not find any justification for granting further compensation in addition to the relief already granted by the District Consumer Forum. Moreover, adequate litigation expenses have already been awarded.

6. Thus, taking an overall view, we do not find it a fit case even for admission. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.

Appeal case No.640/2009

Date of institution:13.11.2009

Date of decision :4.12.2009

Bhim Sain son of Shri Ram Saran Dass resident of M/s Ram Saran Dass Bhim Sain, Cloth Merchants, Rampura Phul (Punjab), aged 62 years. ….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7th Floor, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director.

2. Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3. The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

.…Respondents

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.

Argued by: Sh.Rajinder Singh Raj,advocate for appellant.

BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member

Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT

4.12.2009
Justice Pritam Pal, President


1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation by complainant is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009 whereby his complaint bearing NO.555 of 2009 was allowed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in the following terms ;

“The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,004/- along with interest @8% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant. They will also pay him Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation. If the above amount is not paid within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay penal interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2003, till its payment.”

2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked one three bedroom type-C house in the proposed Swaran/Rajat Yojna i.e. Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh and deposited a total sum of Rs.10,004/- vide receipt dated 31.12.2003. The officials of the OPs gave verbal assurance that the possession of the house would be handed over by the end of 2007. However, OPs failed to start the construction, therefore, the complainant visited their office and sought refund of the amount but he was put off on one pretext or the other. He also served a legal notice dated 6.3.2009 seeking refund but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OPs was that the Sahara Rajat Scheme was not floated for providing the housing unit. The complainant misinterpreted its terms and conditions and in fact the scheme provided different opportunities i.e. for purchase of Sahara products to avail different facilities provided by Sahara and also an opportunity for conversion into Sahara City Homes Scheme if the purchaser so desired. It was pleaded that the complainant was advised many times to exercise his option but he did not opt for the said scheme. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- under Sahara Rajat Yojna and not under Sahara City Homes. For the allotment of housing unit it was compulsory for the person to convert his account into Sahara City Homes and there was no time limit in the scheme for the allotment of the plot or to avail services or purchase products and the complainant could avail either of the facilities within a period of 10 years. So, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

4. The learned District Consumer Forum after obtaining evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of admission of this appeal. His sole point is that the District Consumer Forum, though, allowed the complaint, yet failed to award compensation. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this point raised on behalf of appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as he had already been awarded interest @ 8% p.a. on the refundable amount which tallies the rate of interest payable on the fixed deposits. In this case before us a perusal of the impugned order shows that the interest has been awarded since 31.12.2003 i.e. the date of deposit of Rs.10,004/- with OPs. So, keeping in view the interest awarded by the learned District Forum @ 8% p.a. ,we do not find any justification for granting further compensation in addition to the relief already granted by the District Consumer Forum. Moreover, adequate litigation expenses have already been awarded.

6. Thus, taking an overall view, we do not find it a fit case even for admission. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.

Consumer Case No. 52 /2007


Between:-



Nandika Mahalakshmi, s/o.Ananda Rao,

34 years, employee, H.No.2-135, Cheediga,

Kakinada. … Complainant



And



1. The Branch Manager, M/s.Sahara India,

Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Paradise Complex,

Nagamalli Thota Junction, Kakinadaa-533 003.



2. The Zonal Manager, Sahara Manzil,

Southern Zonal Office, Sahara India Pariwar,

Opp. A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 004.



3. The Managing Director, Sahara India Karthavya

Council, Command Office, Sahara India Bhavan,

1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow-226 024. … Opposite parties





This case coming on 7-12-2009 for final hearing, before this Forum in the presence of Sri A.V.Ch.S.S.Murthy, advocate for the complainant and Sri D.V.K. Ramakrishna, advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum made the following;
O R D E R



(By Sri P. Vijender, President on behalf of the Bench)



This complaint is under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, preferred against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for their failure to pay the maturity amount on Golden bonds purchased by the complainant.



2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the 1st opposite party is the Regional Office and the 2nd opposite party is the Zonal Office and the 3rd opposite party is the Head and Command office, which is a non-banking financial company, collecting deposits and funds in the form of debentures convertible and non-convertible from the public. It sold 80 fully paid optionally convertible golden bonds of Rs.100/- each to the complainant, agreeing to pay the amount with interest at 17.65% p.a. The opposite parties also issued a certificate dated 31-3-1997. The said maturity date of the debentures is 58 months from the date of issue and the maturity amount should be paid on 31-1-2002. The complaint after the maturity period made, a demand with the opposite parties for payment of the maturity bond amount through his letter dated 7-3-2005, but there was no response. Hence, he got issued a legal notice on 13-3-2006 and the 3rd opposite party addressed a letter dated 5-4-2006 informing that it was in the process and complete status will be intimated to him within 30 days. On 29-5-2006, the 1st opposite party sent a letter informing the complainant that after verification, they confirmed that payment was released to the complainant on 19-4-2002 and asked the complainant to attend the office on 3-6-2006 for verification. In response to it, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for verification of the record, but he was not allowed and documents were not shown to him and that he was orally informed that the maturity bond was already paid. Upon that the complainant got issued a notice on 22-10-2006 calling upon the opposite parties to furnish xerox copies showing the payment of the maturity amount. For that there was no response. Again he got issued another notice on 1-12-2006 asking the opposite parties to furnish proof of payment, but his efforts were in vain.

The opposite parties never made any payment to the complainant on maturity of the Golden bonds till date and they are playing foul game and with a malafide intention to evade the payment of the maturity amount falsely alleging that the amount was already paid. The opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and thereby causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The very fact that the original bond issued by the opposite parties is lying with the complainant show that the amount was not paid as without surrender of the bond, the opposite parties are not expected to pay the maturity amount. Hence, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity gold bond amount with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. in addition to the damages which should be double the maturity amount for causing mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

The cause of action for the complaint arose on 31-3-1997 when the opposite parties sold the said golden bonds to the complainant and on 31-1-2002 when the bonds are matured and on 7-2-2005, when the complainant sent letter demanding the maturity amount and on 13-3-2006, when the complainant got issued notice and on 5-4-2006 when the opposite parties sent letter stating that the maturity amount was paid to the concerned and on 22-10-2006 and 1-12-2006 when the complainant again got issued the notices.



3. The 1st opposite party filed the written version on behalf of himself and other opposite parties 2 and 3. In the written version, the opposite parties admitted issuance of 80 fully paid up Golden bonds of Rs.100/- each to the complainant and a certificate to that effect, but denied the rest of the complaint averments. The contentions raised in the written version are that the complainant was fully informed that the period of Golden bond is 60 months and he can take the maturity amount on 31-3-2002. After the maturity of the Golden bonds on 31-3-1997, he approached the 1st opposite party stating that the original Golden bond certificate issued by the opposite parties was lost or misplaced. Believing on her words, the maturity amount was paid under Advice No.205621 dated 19-4-2002 and she has submitted her affidavit with regard to misplacing of the certificate. It appears that the complainant after tracing out the original certificate instead of surrendering it, started claiming the maturity amount once again with a malafide intention and for wrongful gain. The complainant has received the maturity amount on 19-4-2002 as full and final settlement of the claim and nothing remained to be paid to her. The present complaint is preferred with the sole aim of malign the high reputation and goodwill of the opposite parties.

The complaint is also time barred under Section 21A of Consumer Protection Act because if any cause of action had arisen, it was on the date of maturity payment, i.e. 31-3-2002, after the expiry of 60 months period from the date of opening the account and on 19-4-2002 on which date the complainant received the maturity amount of Rs.18,032/-. The present complaint was filed on 31-5-2007 i.e. with a delay of 1155 days without explaining the same properly.

The complainant while investing the amount under the Golden Bond Scheme, signed the application form, which forms, the agreement between the parties. In the application form there is an arbitration clause saying that if any disputes arose between the company and the applicant regarding interpretation or exercise of any term, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of “Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996” by Sole Arbitrator appointed by the company. The present complaint is in violation of the said arbitrary clause in the application form signed by the complainant. On this ground also the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.

The present case involves the complex question of fact and law which cannot be adjudicated by Consumer Fora. The dispute can be decided only after giving the parties concern ample opportunity of adducing their evidence which is possible only on the regular side in Civil Court by a suit. On this ground also the complaint is not maintainable.

This scheme under which the complainant invested the amount is managed by Sahara India International Corporation Limited to which Sahara India works as an agent, but the complainant intentionally has not made Sahara India as necessary party. Hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder, mis-joinder of the parties.

The complainant having approached the 1st opposite party stating that he lost/ misplaced the original Golden Bond Certificate and by filing a notarized affidavit to that effect, received the maturity amount and after tracing out the original certificate came up with the present complaint only to have unlawful gain. Hence, the complainant is not entitled any relief.

4. For the complainant Exs.A1 to A14 are marked and got filed his evidence as P.W.1. On behalf of the opposite parties Exs.B1 to B4 were marked without oral evidence by either of the parties.



5. On hearing arguments and considering the averments in the complaint and written version of the opposite parties and considering the documents marked on both sides, the following points have emerged for consideration:-



1) Whether the complainant received the Golden Bond amounts on maturity from the

1st opposite party?



2) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?



3) To what relief?



6. Point No.1:- The admitted facts are the 1st opposite party is the Branch Manager and the 2nd opposite party is the Zonal Manager of the 3rd opposite party which is non-banking financial institution, collecting monies from the public in the form of fixed deposit debentures convertible and non-convertible and shares and in furtherance of it, floated optionally convertible Golden bonds of Rs.100/- each and the applicant opted for non-convertible. The opposite parties agreed to pay the bond amount after the expiry of 60 months with interest at 17.65% p.a. and the complainant has purchased 80 Golden bonds of Rs.100/- each on 31-3-1997. Ex.B4 is the original application form of the complainant submitted for the purchase of 80 fully paid up Golden bonds of Rs.100/- each from the opposite parties. On back of the Ex.B4 application form, the terms and conditions are there and it shows that in case of no option is exercised by the bondholder, the bond will be redeemed on completion of 60 months from the date of application, the amount will be paid by the company. The complainant version is that the maturity period of the bond is 58 months and maturity amount has to be paid in 59th month.

7. Since the opposite parties took a plea of payment of bond amount to the complainant on 19-4-2002, the onus will be on them to substantiate the same. The opposite parties in support of their contention, filed Exs.B1 to B4 documents. It is specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party stating that the original Golden Bond Certificate was misplaced or lost and to that effect furnished a notarized affidavit in Ex.B3 and believing it the opposite party made payment by way of cash under Ex.B1 cash voucher and it is evidenced by Ex.B2 payment advice dt. 31-3-2002.



8. The contention of the complainant is that the Exs.B1 to B3 are fabricated documents to avoid the payment of maturity amount. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties are not expected to pay the maturity amount without surrender of the original bond certificate, which is lying with the complainant itself and produced it and got filed as Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention in this Forum about the signatures of the complainant on original application form Ex.B4 and that of Ex.B3 the so called notarized affidavit and Ex.B1 and signatures are not tallying with the original application form Ex.B4. It is true that the signatures on the original application form Ex.B4 is totally different with the signatures appearing on Exs.B1 and B2. In Ex.B1, the signatures as N. Mahalakshmi is in English and also Nanda Lakshmi Vralu in Telugu. In Ex.B3 notarised affidavit, the signature is shown as N. Mahalakshmi and Telugu signature as Nanda Lakshmi was obliterated by placing whitener which clearly visible to a naked eye. But at the same time, it is to be seen that the signature of the complainant on his evidence affidavit is also not tallying with the signatures on Ex.B4 original application form. To a naked eye, it is crystal clear that the signatures on evidence affidavit of the complainant is totally different from the signatures visible from the application form Ex.B4.

It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is a male, but the version of the opposite parties is the bondholder is female and learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Forum, that the nominee shown in the Ex.B4 application is wife and there cannot be wife to a female applicant. The name of the nominee in Ex.B4 is shown as J. Buelah. At the same time, the name of the promoter, introducer and witness is also shown as J. Buelah. How can the introducer/witness can be nominee to the applicant is not explained by the learned counsel for the complainant. The other submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the name of the applicant from Ex.B4 application form is Nandika Raha Lakshmi, whereas the maturity amount alleged to have been paid as per Exs.B1 to B3 was N. Radha Lakshmi. A close examination in Ex.B4 application form shows while writing the full name of the complainant, the M. is written as R and unless it is closely examined it cannot be said that the applicant name is N. Mahalakshmi. A plane reading of the name of the applicant appears as if it is N. Raha Lakshmi. Because of the writing style of capital M. appearing in the shape of R. In the Exs.B1 to B4, the name was written as Raha Lakshmi instead of Mahalakshmi. This cannot be reason to say that Exs.B1 to B4 are false documents.

As per Ex.B4 application form, the maturity period of the bond Ex.A1 is 31-3-2002. When the complainant has not received the maturity amount soon after the maturity period what made him not to approach the 1st opposite party till 7-3-2005 i.e. nearly for 3 years after the maturity period is not explained. According to the contents of the complaint in para 2 that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party with letter dated 7-3-2005 and not earlier to that. According to the complainant when there was no response to the letter dated 7-3-2005 in Ex.A2 and he got issued a notice on 13-3-2006 under Ex.A3 i.e. more than one year after the first letter Ex.A2 and what made him to wait for one year after serving of the Ex.A2 letter not explained. Though Ex.A3 is notice dated 13-3-2006, it was dispatched on 22-3-2006 as per Ex.A4 is the postal receipt. Soon after the service of Ex.A3 notice, the 1st opposite party addressed a letter in Ex.A8 dated 29-5-2006 informing the complainant that the records verified and confirmed that the payment was released to the concerned on 19-4-2002 and for the verification of the documents, the complainant was welcome to the office of the 1st opposite party on 3-6-2006 with an intimation of it. According to the complainant after receipt of Ex.A8 letter, he went to the opposite party, but he was not allowed to verify the documents with regard to payment of the amount. Hence, he got issued a notice to the opposite parties on 22-10-2006 under Ex.A9 asking the 1st opposite party to send the xerox copies of the documents in proof of the payment of the maturity amount. When the complainant was invited to visit the office of the 1st opposite party on 3-6-2006 and he was not permitted to verify the records what made him to wait for more than three and half months for causing of Ex.A9 asking for xerox copies of documents in proof of the payment of the maturity amount is not explained.

The legal notice got issued by the complainant was on 1-12-2006 under Ex.A11 when there was no reply to him for Ex.A9 letter. Another important aspect is the wife of the complainant is an employee of the 1st opposite party at the time when the maturity amount was paid under Exs.B1 to B3 documents. If really the complainant has not received the bond amount soon after the maturity period certainly he would have addressed a letter of Ex.A2 immediately but it was issued 3 years after the maturity period. The complainant cannot be ignorance or forget fullness of maturity amount because his wife as an employee to the 1st opposite party knows the dates of maturity of bonds. All this go to show that the complainant taking advantage of the fact of his wife working in the 1st opposite party soon after expiry the maturity period Ex.A1 bond, approached the 1st opposite party, received the maturity amount by submitting Ex.B3 notarized affidavit stating that he lost the original certificate and after tracing out the original certificate started making fresh claim for payment of the maturity amount again. Hence, the point is answered, the complainant has already received the maturity amount.



9. Admittedly, under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation period is 2 years for filing a complaint before this Forum. In the present case, the maturity period of Ex.A1 bond was 31-3-2002. The complaint was before this Forum on 31-5-2007 i.e. more than 5 years after the maturity period. Even if it is said that the correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties amounts to continuation of cause of action, still it is to be seen that the first letter addressed by the complainant under Ex.A2 was on 7-3-2005, whereas the maturity period of the bond is 31-3-2002. Even by the date of Ex.A2 letter, it was more than 2 years, eleven months after the maturity period. By the date of Ex.A2 letter itself, the limitation for filing of a complaint of this nature was barred by limitation. Hence, the present complaint filed in the year 2007 is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly, the point is answered.



10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 10th day of December, 2009.

Dear Sir,

I had booked 3 bedroom flat Type -C in zirakpur under sahara swarna yojna scheme in dec 2004 under receipt no.10142407731.

Payments were made as per the details below:

Receipt no. Amount Date

1.10112678276 100000 28/8/2004

2.10142404608 35350 15/12/2004

3.10142407731 135350 31/12/2004

4. 10142385419 11279 24/1/2005

5. 10142390568 11279 15/2 /2005

6. 10166654338 11279 6/5/2005

7. 10142399317 11279 6/5/2005

8. 10142400140 11279 27/5/2005

9. 10172123346 11279 23/6/2005

10.10154619965 11279 23/7/2005

11.10160093744 11279 31/8/2005

12.10172124536 11279 22/9/2005

13. 10256181372 111045 1/4/2006

14.10353140805 119106 31/7/2007

TOTAL AMOUNT PAID 602362

SAHARA ADVERTISEMENT IN CHANDIGARH TRIBUNE HAD DECLARED THAT PEOPLE WILL START RESIDING IN PHASE 1 CITIES BY 2007 AND ZIRAKPUR WAS INCLUDED BY SAHARA IN PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

VISITS TO SAHARA OFFICE IN CHANDIGARH HAS FAILED TO ELICIT ANY POSITIVE RESPONSE. EVERY VISIT IS REWARDED BY THE ANSWER THAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO START SOON SO WE SHOULD WAIT.

PLSE GUIDE.

REGARDS,

MAJOR (DR.) GURPREET GILL.