Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6262
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sri.B.Sudheendra Kumar, President, Sri.Ajith Kumar D., J, Sri.K.R. Radhakrishnan, Member
Mathew K. Cherian – Appellant
Versus
Liji Philip – Respondent
Revision Petition No. SC/32/RP/29/2025 | Appeal DC/559/CC/205/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jolly John
For the Respondents: Liji Philip
Issuance of non-convertible debentures constitutes a service, making debenture holders consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(7), 2(11), 2(42) - Non-convertible debentures - Investment issues - The petitioner contended that debentures are not 'goods' hence the complaint is non-maintainable - Court held that issuance of debentures constitutes a service obligation, qualifying the complainant as a consumer under the Act. (Paras 9-17)
(B) Maintainability of complaint - Misjoinder of parties - The court ruled that misjoinder is not sufficient for dismissal at the initial stage, and can be rectified later. (Paras 18-19)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and overview of the revision petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details about the investments and maturity amounts. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. controversy regarding applicability of consumer definition. (Para 6) |
| 4. debentures qualify as service under consumer protection act. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. conclusion on maintainability of complaint despite misjoinder. (Para 18 , 19) |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.205/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short, the ‘District Commission’).
2. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.9A/2023 in C.C. No. 205/2022, challenging the maintainability of the complaint. The District Commission as per order dated 07.05.2025 dismissed I.A.No.9A/2023 holding that the complaint is maintainable.
3. The complainant invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh only) on 21.12.2011 as redeemable non-convertible debenture issued by the opposite party, namely, M/s Kosamattom Finance Ltd., which is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), for a period of ten years under cumulative investment scheme. The maturity date of the said investment was 21.12.2021. The amount agreed to be paid on maturity was Rs.20 lakh. However, an amount of Rs.13,48,661/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty One only) alone was credited to the account of the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant demanded the balance amount of Rs.6,51,339/-(Rupees Six Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Nine only). However, the opposite party did not respond to the said demand.
4. The notice was served on the opposite party. But, the opposite party did not incline to file any written version within the statutory period. Therefore, the opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission on 12.12.2022. The opposite party filed I.A.No.09/2023 on 16.01.2023 praying for setting aside the ex- parte order. I.A.No.09/2023 was dismissed by the District Commission. The opposite party also filed I.A.No.9A/2023 on 15.01.2023 praying for hearing the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. I.A.No.9A/2023 was dismissed by the District Commission as per order dated 07.05.2025. In this revision petition, the opposite party challenges the order passed by the District Commission on I.A.No.9A/2023.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. The revision petitioner has raised only two contentions in I.A.No.9A/2023. The first contention is that since the non-convertible debentures are not “goods”, the complainant cannot fall within the ambit of consumer as provided under Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the Act’ for short) and consequently, the present complaint is not maintainable. The second contention is with regard to the misjoinder of parties. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reiterated the said contentions in his argument.
7. It is not disputed that the opposite party did not file any version within the statutory period before the District Commission. Therefore, the only right the revision petitioner could exercise was to participate in the proceedings, cross-examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, and advance argument before the District Commission on legal aspects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 in Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited ( 2024 KHC 6386 : 2024 INSC 542 : AIR 2024 SC 3854 ). However, the District Commission considered and disposed of I.A.No.9A/2023 as a preliminary issue as directed by the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)No.7195/23.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that since the non-
convertible debentures are not “goods”, the complainant would not fall within the ambit of consumer as provided under Section 2 (7) of the Act and consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.
