ANIL KUMAR BHAYANA vs ASHOK G.NAVANEY

THESE 8 appeals have been filed against a common order dated 12.1.2001 passed by District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case Nos. 1747/1999-entitled Shri Ashok G. Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; Complaint Case No. 378/1998-entitled Smt. Shakuntla Rani v. Anil Kumar Bhayana; 379/1999-entitled Shri R.N. Arya v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; 1796/1998-entitled Smt. Janki Devi Bhatia v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; 1795/1998-entitled Mrs. Pushpa G. Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana; 2431/1998-entitled Km. Pooja Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana and 2430/1998-entitled Smt. Meenu Navaney v. Shri Anil Kumar Bhayana.

SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in all the above eight appeals, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The appellant had filed a consolidated appeal against all the respondents being Appeal No. 526/2001. However, the Counsel for the appellant vide orders/proceedings dated 18.4.2001 had undertaken to file separate appeals in accordance with law. Since seven separate appeals were filed thereafter the appeal No. 526/2001 has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.

The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, in brief, are that the respondents had filed separate complaints before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') averring therein that the respondents had deposited the amounts, as specified in their respective complaints, in fixed deposits, with the appellant, to be paid on maturity together with agreed rate of interest. However, on the maturity of the FDRs the appellant failed to repay the said amounts and the cheques issued to the respondents for various amounts were dishonoured. As such, the respondents approached the District Forum, praying for the refund of the respective amounts of Fixed Deposits together with interest and costs.

THE defence of the appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the respondents had already filed criminal, as well as, civil cases against the appellant on the same subject matter and as such the complaints filed before the District Forum under the Act were not maintainable. THE appellant had also raised several other preliminary objections. However, since the appellant had failed to place on record the relevant proof of civil cases pending before different Civil Courts on the same subject-matter or to adduce any evidence, and had also failed to appear before the District Forum on 12.1.2001, the date fixed, the appellant had been proceeded ex parte on the said date by the District Forum.

AS such the learned District Forum decided the complaints in favour of the respondents with the directions to the appellant to pay to the respondents the principal amount together with agreed rate of interest being the maturity amount of the FDRs along with further interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity of the FDRs till the date of payment. The learned District Forum had also vide impugned order imposed cost of Rs. 250/- in each case, to be paid by the appellant to the respondents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeals, in this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have deliberated upon the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant. We have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties at length. The crux of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant in the present appeals is that the appellant was religiously pursuing the matter before the learned District Forum and had also filed its reply/written version and the date of hearing was fixed on 12.1.2001 for adducing the relevant records with respect to the civil/criminal cases pending before the various Courts of competent jurisdiction filed by the respondents, against the appellant, on the same subject-matter as involved in the complaints filed before the District Forum. However, since the appellant on account of death of his mother-in-law had to proceed to Hardwar for performing her last rites, he was unable to attend the Court i.e. on 12.1.2001 and as such was proceeded ex parte and the complaints were decided against the appellant in his absence on the same date without affording the appellant the opportunity of adducing evidence and representing his case. So far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, appellant has only explained the reason for his absence for attending the date of hearing on 12.1.2001 before the District Forum, but has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever with regard to the absence of his Counsel or any other authorised representative on his behalf. Furthermore, no proof of the death of his mother-in-law have been placed on record in support of the case made out by him. As such the contention raised by the appellant is devoid of substance and therefore cannot be upheld. On merits the appellant has no case and the present appeals filed by the appellant are nothing but ploy to deny the legitimate dues to the respondents on flimsy grounds.

IN any case, while deciding the case on merits, the learned District Forum had taken into account the objections raised by the appellant in his reply/written version filed before the District Forum, as well as, other pleas raised by him therein. Even before us the appellant has not denied that the respondents had deposited with him the amounts, as mentioned in the respective complaints filed before the District Forum. Nor has the appellant denied the rate of interest and other terms of deposit. It was only contended on behalf of the appellant that some payments have been made by the appellant to some of the respondents. However, no authenticated proof in respect of the same has also been filed by the appellant. However, at the instance of this Commission, the respondent in Appeal No. A-1039/2001 Smt. Janaki Devi Bhatia has placed on record the fact that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to her on 22.11.2002 and balance amount of Rs. 3,59,581/- is still due and payable by the appellant towards the principal amount, interest and costs awarded as per the impugned order. The respondent in Appeal No. A-1038/2001 has also placed on record in writing that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to him on 22.11.2002 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,88,691/- still remains due and payable by the appellant, to the said respondent towards the principal amount, as well as, interest and cost as per the impugned order of the learned District Forum dated 12.1.2001. Beyond the said admissions of payment made there is nothing on record on the part of the appellant to show that any other amount has been paid to any of the other respondents.

ANOTHER objection raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the respondents had filed civil/criminal cases on the same subject-matter as involved in the complaints filed before the District Forum. However, no material was either filed before the District Forum or before us regarding the pendency of such cases. In any case mere pendency of criminal cases would not bar the respondents from filing complaints on account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, under the Act. As such the said contention of the appellant is also devoid of merit. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned District Forum so as to call for any interference in the same in exercise of our appellate powers. Accordingly, the present eight appeals, filed by the appellant being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed. The same are dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. The appellant is directed to comply with the impugned order within 30 days of the receipt of this order. It may however, further be clarified that the payments admitted to be received by the respondents may be taken into account by the appellant while complying with the orders of the learned District Forum. Appeals dismissed.