This is a discussion on Vajreshwari chits pvt. Ltd within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; //JUDGMENT// This is the complaint filed by Complainant M.Bharmoji Rao against Respondent No.1 and 2 under Sec-12 of C.P.Act, for ...
Administrator
Vajreshwari chits pvt. Ltd //JUDGMENT//
This is the complaint filed by Complainant M.Bharmoji Rao against Respondent No.1 and 2 under Sec-12 of C.P.Act, for to direct the Respondents to return deposited share amount of Rs.88,000/- with interest, to issue direction to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- as a compensation for their negligence and dereliction of duties, for to award an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards cost of this litigation with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;
He became the Member of Respondents Chit Fund by investing an amount of Rs.88,000/- on 17/03/2006. Thereafter, the Respondents called him for the Executive Body Meeting held at Sindhanoor and Gangavathi. Later on, he not received such intimations from the Respondents as such, he met the Chairman of Respondents Chit Fund to return invested amount and requested them in writing for to cancel his directorship and membership. The Respondents not returned the amount inspite of several requests. Hence, he filed this complaint for the relies as prayed in it.
3. The Respondent No.1 is placed exparte.
4. The Respondent No.2 appeared and filed his Written Version by contending that, the Respondents Chit Fund is carrying its business in Sindhanur and Gagavathi. It has no business or it’s Branch Offices in Bellary District. Hence, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Complainant is not a consumer. He is Director of Respondents Chit Fund. Removal of his directorship requires several procedures. There is no service to be rendered by the Respondents to the Complainant. He deposited an amount of Rs.88,000/- on 17/03/2006 as Director of the Company. It has not received letters from the Complainant for to removal of his directorship. The share capital of Complainant is returnable subject to the profits and loss of the Company. The Complainant is Director is bound by Articles of Association of Company. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/-.
5. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;
1.
Whether the Complainant proves that, he deposited an amount of Rs.88,000/- on 17/03/2006 as Director of Respondents Chit Fund, not received Meeting notices and thereafter he requested the Chairman and other authorities of Respondents to return the invested amount by canceling his directorship by oral and written notices, the Respondents shown their negligence in settling his claim and thereby both Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services towards him?
2.
Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed in this complaint?
3.
To what relief the Complainant is entitled for?
//POINTS//
6. Our findings on the above points are as under.
Point No.1:
In Negative.
Point No.2:
In Negative.
Point No.3:
In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;
Point Nos.1 & 2: -//REASONS//
7. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, the affidavit evidence of Complainant was filed, he was noted as P.W.1. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 are marked. On the other hand, the affidavit evidence of General Manger of Respondent Company was filed, he was noted as R.W.1. No documents filed and marked. Both parties have not filed their Written Arguments.
8. The first point for our consideration is that whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.
9. The learned advocate for Complainant referred I.A.1 filed by the Complainant under Sec-11(2)(b) of C.P. Act to admit the complaint for the reasons mentioned in it. On the other hand, the learned advocate for Respondent No.2 contended that, the reasons mentioned in the application are not sufficient for Complainant to file this complaint before this Forum which has no territorial jurisdiction.
10. In pursuance of submissions made on both sides and the facts noted in I.A.1 filed by Complainant and objections taken by Respondent No.2 in his Written Version at Para No.3, it is a fact that, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have restricted their business in Sindhanur taluk of Raichur District and Gangavati taluk of Koppal District. Their Head Offices for business purpose is situated in Sindhanur only. The Respondents have no their business Offices either in Bellary or in Hospet where this Complainant is permanently residing. The alleged transaction in between the Complainant and Respondents took place in Sindhanur town itself.
11. Keeping in view of these facts, the reasons stated by the Complainant in his application I.A.1 are that, he is economically unsound to file his complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Raihcur, which has territorial jurisdiction, he is not feeling well and unable to travel long journey due to back pain. He is unemployed and not able to bear the expenses as such, he filed this complaint before this Forum.
12. On perusal of above said reasons, we are of the view that, no part of the alleged transaction took place in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. No part of cause of action had arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as such, we are of the view that, the reasons mentioned by the Complainant in his I.A.1 filed under Sec-11(2) (b) of C.P. Act are not tenable grounds to exercise special powers of this Forum for to allow the Complainant to file his complaint before this Forum. In this regard we have referred the principles of ruling reported in (2000) CPJ 1 (NC) American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Gupta & Others.
13. The second point for our consideration is that, whether Complainant is a consumer under the meaning and definition of Sec-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act and there is any deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents under the meaning and definition of Sec-2(1)(g) of the said Act.
14. As pleaded by the Complainant in Para No.2 and in his affidavit evidence that he has invested amount of Rs.88,000/- on 17/03/2006 with Respondents Chit Fund. In Para No.3 of the complaint, he pleaded that, he attended Executive Body Meetings of Respondents in Sindhanur as well as in Gangavathi as he is the executive committee member of Respondents Chit Fund. In Para No.5 of the complaint, he contended that, he written a letter for cancellation of his directorship and membership. In Para No.4 of complaint, it was stated by him that he requested the Chairman and General Manger of Respondents Chit Fund to furnish profit details of account and requested to return invested amount. His document Ex.P.1 shows that he is one of the Director of Respondents Chit Fund. In Ex.P.3 confirms that, the Complainant is the Director of Respondents Chit Fund. Ex.P.5 shows that a letter given by the Complainant to Respondents for to cancel his directorship and to return his share amount of Rs.88,000/-. The affidavit evidence of R.W. 1 shows admission of those facts.
15. In the light of above said set of facts, the Complainant cannot be a consumer and Respondents are not service providers. It is a dispute in between one of the Director of said Chits Fund with its Management with regard to non-furnishing of profit and loss account statements and non- intimating him to attend the Executive Meeting. There cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents in the light of above said allegations. Dispute in between one of the Directors of the Respondents Chit Fund with its Management cannot be called as a consumer dispute as such, we are of the view that, all the contentions taken by the Complainant in this regard not helpful for him to establish the fact that, he is a consumer and Respondents are service providers and there is no deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents. Accordingly, we answered Point No.1 in Negative.
16. In view of the findings on Point No.1, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. Accordingly, we answered Point No.2 in Negative.
Point No.3: -
17. In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, we pass the following;
The complaint filed by the Complainant is rejected. All the parties are directed to bear their own respective costs.//ORDER//
Inform the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum this 26th day of March 2009).
PRESIDENT,DISTRICT FORUM, BELLARY.MEMBER,DISTRICT FORUM, BELLARY.MEMBER,DISTRICT FORUM, BELLARY.
Regards,
Admin,
** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Submit Complaint..