INTEGRATED FINANCE CO.LTD Vs. MOLLY CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above 3 appeals are preferred from the common order dated 16th June 2006 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.Nos.47/06, 46/06 and 45/06 respectively. The complaints in those consumer complaints were filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (M/s Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.) in their failure to disburse the fixed deposits effected by the complainants with the opposite party M/s Integrated Finance Co.Ltd. It was alleged that the complainants in CC.45/06 deposited Rs.80,000/- with the maturity date of the deposit as 22..9..2007. The opposite parties paid the interest on the fixed deposits upto May 2005 and thereafter the opposite parties defaulted to pay the interest due on the fixed deposits. Hence the complainants claimed refund of the deposit amount with interest accrued thereon. The complainant in CC.46/06 averred that he deposited amount with the opposite party M/S Integrated Finance Co.Ltd and the fixed deposit was matured; but the opposite parties failed to disburse the maturity amount with subsequent interest due on the deposit. The complainant in CC.47/06 has also alleged that she deposited amount with the opposite party/ M/s Integrated Finance Co.Ltd. and the fixed deposit has been matured but the opposite parties failed to disburse the maturity amount with the subsequent interest. Thus, the complainants in those consumer complaints claimed refund of the deposited amounts with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/-

(2.) The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that complaints are not maintainable and the complainants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act .The complainants have not hired any services for consideration; that the complainants have to approach competent civil court; that the opposite party/M/s Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. moved the Hon?ble High Court of Madras for the approval of a scheme of arrangement/compromise between the 2nd opposite party and its deposit holders under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, that the meeting of the deposit holders has been convened on the judge?s summons for directions and in the said meeting a resolution was passed in Chennai on 10.8.05 and the same has been placed before the Hon?ble High Court of Madras for appropriate orders of approving scheme of the arrangement/ compromise. It is further contended that the opposite parties have also filed a petition for a stay and the same is pending before the Hon?ble High Court of Madras and that the complainants are bound by the resolution, subject to the final decision of the Hon?ble High Court of Madras. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the above complaints.

(3.) Before the Forum below the complainant in CC.45/06 was examined as PW1 and a witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B4 documents were also marked from the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.45/06. The complainant in CC.46/06 was examined as PW1 and witness on the side of the opposite parties as DW1. Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B4 documents were also marked in CC.46/06. The complainant in CC.47/06 was examined as PW1 and the witness on the side of the opposite parties as DW1. Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite parties.