AMARJIT KAUR vs JVG INVESTMENT LTD.

THE present appeal has been filed against order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II), in Complaint Case No. 936 of 1999 pleading, inter alia, the District Forum-II failed to appreciate the facts of the case as in the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant was dismissed without going into the merits of the same and on the plea that the complainants are contumaciously neglecting to file their affidavits. THE appellant has assailed the order of the District Forum-II on the plea that vide common order dated 4.4.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 795 of 1999, 10 complaint cases filed against separate Companies though under the same group were dismissed though the facts of each case and Company rendering the service were different and the order of the District Forum-II has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. THE appellant has pleaded that the complaint of the appellant be reheard and disposed of on merit after taking into account the evidence on record of the appellant/complainant.

A perusal of the record of the District Forum-II pertaining to the complaint case of the appellant and the impugned order appealed against shows that the District Forum-II clubbed 10 complaint cases filed by the different complainants against JVG Investments India Ltd.; M/s. JVG Securities Limited; M/s. JVG Industries Ltd., M/s. JVG Finance Ltd.; M/s. JVG Farm Fresh India Ltd.; M/s. JVG Foods Ltd.; M/s. JVG Holding Ltd., and M/s. JVG Techno India Ltd. The present complaint case was filed against M/s. JVG Investments Ltd. though it was decided vide common order passed in Complaint Case No. 795 of 1999 and is shown at internal page 3 of the impugned order. We are of the considered opinion that the findings of the District Forum-II was erroneous as the respondent/O.P. Companies though under the common management but in view of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 that each Company is a separate juristic person as it can sue and be sued separately, the District Forum-II was not justified in law in clubbing the complaint cases filed against different Companies though under the same group. The complaint case filed by an individual complainant has to be considered on the basis of allegations and averments against the specific opposite party impleaded in that case and generic kind of order against the O.P. Companies was not justified. The fact that the complainants are different individuals and even the O.P. - Companies are different entities, the individual cases of the complainants have not been appropriately considered and adjudicated under the provisions of law as given under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act), which has been enacted with a view to give better protection to the consumer. With that end in view, we deem it appropriate that the O.P. be allowed an adequate opportunity to prove their complaint case before the District Forum-II.

We are of the considered opinion that the contentions of the appellant have merit and we allow the appeal insofar as it relates to the case of the appellant. The impugned order so far it relates to the appellant is set aside. The Complaint Case No. 936 of 1999 is remanded to the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh for decision on merit on the basis of material placed on record and the complaint case be decided as per the time schedule prescribed in the C.P. Act. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 20.12.2002. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.