The depositors are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and are entitled to the refund of their deposits with interest.

ORDER

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member - FA No. 453 of 2004 and FA No. 454 of 2004 emanate from the same order dated 28th July, 2004 in Complaint Nos. 9 and 8 of 2003 of the State Commission, Goa, Panaji. FA No. 453 of 2004 is filed by Shri Sadanand Sundar Rao Mahajan and other 56 members, whereas FA No. 454 of 2004 is filed by Mrs. Vasanti K Khanwte and other 211 members. Both the groups of appellants are represented through "All Goa Manipal Finance Group of Companies Creditors Association". As the issues are similar and the representatives of the appellants and the respondents are the same in both the matters, we have heard these matters together and propose to pass a common order.

Facts:

2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that most of the complainants are senior citizens, retired and sick persons who are entirely dependent on the interest accrued on the deposits made by them with the respondent Corporation. It is the case of the appellants that through various Press statements and public gimmicks the respondents introduced deposit schemes and invited applications from the public. In response thereto, the complainants deposited their hard-earned money in different schemes, i.e. Shreyus, which are in the nature of promissory notes fixed deposits debenture certificates, and application form for redeemable subordinated debt, contain various terms and conditions. One such condition stipulated therein is that in case of any deficiency in service the depositor can approach the forums set up under the Consumer Protection Act for relief. Thereafter the respondent-Company closed down its business in Goa without any reasonable cause and refused to refund the deposits to the depositors. The appellants came to know through reliable sources that the company has disposed of its office premises and other immovable properties in Goa. The appellants issued a letter to the respondent - Company on 28th November, 2002, inter alia calling upon it to return their deposits without further delay which did not elicit any response. Hence, they filed complaints before the State Commission, Goa, praying for refund of the deposits made with the respondents with interest and costs.

The respondent-Company contested the case before the State Commission contending that the appellants were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that the Registered Office of the respondent was at Manipal and, hence, the Commission at Goa had no territorial jurisdiction. Further, it was contended that the subject-matter of the complaint was similar to the Company Petition which was pending before the Karnataka High Court.

The State Commission after hearing the parties and going through the records of the case held that different groups of consumers have preferred separate complaints whose value is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Commission. Insofar as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the deposits were made through various branches of the respondent - Company, situated at Goa and, hence, the Goa State Commission had pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction.

The State Commission examined the issue regarding redemption of debentures and held that debentures are in the nature of loan requirement of a Company i.e. met by several lenders for issue of several units. The debentures issued by the respondent to the appellants were secured against the assets of the Company and they are not payable on demand as claimed by the appellants and are redeemable only on the expiry of the redemption period. The State Commission further held that as the debentures were in the nature of loan taken by the respondents from the individual investors, there is no element of service involved in the issue and 'servicing of debentures , and, hence, they were not entitled for premature redemption of debentures. With regard to 'shreyus certificates' the State Commission held that they are redeemable Subordinated debt in the nature of promissory notes, as per the d