Alpic Finance Ltd. vs Balbir Kaur

THE appellant feels aggrieved against an ex parte order passed on 8.1.2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] and Complaint Case No. 817 of 2002 filed by the respondent Smt. Balbir Kaur Arneja wife of Sh. Inderdeep Singh r/o House No. 3403, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.

NOTICES had been issued regarding the complaint case filed by the respondent/complainant wherein she sought payment of the maturity amount of the investments made in the 10 bonds of Rs. 1,000/- each vide her Application No. 20002794 dated 14.12.1999 through O.P. No. 3 - Chandigarh Branch of Alpic Finance Limited. These bonds were to carry interest @ 13.5% per annum under cumulative scheme and the investments made in the bonds were to be matured on 14.12.2000. The receipt dated 28.12.1999 was issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent/complainant and the allotment advice of the appellants was dated 2.8.2000. It was alleged by the complainant that vide her application No. 20002793 dated 16.12.1999, the respondent/complainant again applied to the appellants for 10 bonds of Rs. 1,000/- each through the Chandigarh office of O.P. No. 3 and the receipt of this amount was issued by the O.Ps. on 29.12.1999. The bonds were allotted vide advice of O.P. dated 2.8.2000. In all, the total investment made by the respondent/complainant was of 20 bonds of Rs. 1,000/- each and the total value of Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant surrendered these bonds for redemption to the appellants which were duly discharged but the redemption money was not paid to her which amounted to deficiency in service. The respondent/complainant prayed for interest @ 13.5% per annum from the date of investment till maturity and 18% interest from the date of maturity till final payment. Further a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was claimed for mental harassment and non-utilization of the investment amount. Rs. 2,500/- was claimed as costs of litigation. Notices were duly served on the appellants in respect of the complaint case but they did not appear to contest the case and were proceeded ex parte. The complainant relied on her affidavit and filed as Annexures I and II the receipts of payments and allotment advices as Annexures III and IV. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 14.3.2002 (Copy Annexure V) and obtained a certificate (Copy Annexure VI) from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh certifying that the registered notice addressed by the complainant to the O.Ps. was delivered to the addressee. Relying on the ex parte evidence , the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity till payment and also awarded Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation.

Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate appearing for the appellants/O.Ps. mainly contended about the denial of opportunity to contest the complaint case on the ground that the notice of the complaint case had not been served on the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 particularly as the addresses of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 had undergone change. However, the address of O.P. No. 1/appellant which is the head office located at Mumbai was admitted to be a correct one. Additionally, Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate informed us that the Chandigarh Office of the appellant located in S.C.O. No. 333-334, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh had since been closed. The fact, however, remains that the decision to close down the Chandigarh Office is the decision of the appellant itself and the same has not shown to be communicated to the complainant/investor. Likewise, any change in the address of the appellant No. 2 i.e. the Regional office of Alpic Finance Limited at New Delhi has not been shown to have been communicated to the complainant. Besides it, there is no change in the address of the head office of O.P. No. 1/appellant Alpic Finance Limited and the notice sent by the District Forum at this address is presumed to have reached the appellant No. 1 as the notice was not received back unserved. Once the head office had been intimated vide notice regarding the filing of the complaint then it was the matter to be dealt with by the head office to contest the complaint case by issuing suitable directions to the regional office located at New Delhi at whatever address it had allegedly been shifted. The complainant cannot be penalized for not furnishing a correct address if there was a change as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

MR. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate stated before us that on facts, there is no dispute regarding the investment of the amount made in the bonds and regarding the redemption of the bonds with interest on the agreed rate but he contended that as a matter of fact, the company Alpic Finance Limited has undergone liquidation and the matter is pending before the Company Judge under liquidation proceedings. Be that as it may, the mere fact that the Company is under liquidation will not be sufficient for not deciding the complaint case filed under the C.P. Act as it is a remedy in addition to the other remedy available to the complainant and not in derogation to the other remedies available to him under the law as provided by Section 3 of the C.P. Act. The appellants at best can raise a plea at the time of the execution of the impugned order and placed before the Executing Court the facts regarding the Company being under liquidation before the Company Judge and can take a plea that the impugned order which imposes the liability on the Company under liquidation has to be taken note of by the Company Judge while finalizing the liquidation proceedings. Faced with such a situation, Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate said that the appellants be allowed to raise such a plea before the Executing Court. The legal pleas which are available to the appellants can always be taken by the appellants before the Executing Forum and the Executing Forum has to take into consideration the submissions in that regard and decide the same according to law. However, so far as the impugned order is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed in limine.