A.P. JAIN vs BARYTE CHEM PVT. LTD.

-THE case of the 1st complainant is that he and his wife viz., the complainants together invested a total sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- with the opposite party in Fixed Deposits and the opposite party returned only a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- and has failed to refund the balance. THErefore, the complainants have approached the District Forum on the ground of deficiency in service.

THE opposite parties contended that they never received any amount for and towards Fixed Deposits from the complainants nor they issued any receipt and that the complainants of course paid certain amounts, but it was for the purpose of purchasing shares, since the 1st complainant desired to invest Rs. 12 lakhs to become an Executive Director of the Company with cheque signing power for bank facility of Rs. 25 lakhs. Thus the complainants made deposits only towards share applications. Since the 1st complainant stated that he has some urgent commitment, a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- from out of the deposits was remitted back to him. THEre was no fixed deposit and the complainants are not consumers. The lower Forum agreed with the contention of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint without costs. Hence this appeal.

We do not find any valid reason either for differing from the verdict of the lower Forum or for upholding the claim of the complainants. Conveniently the complainants would say that they sent the original fixed deposits duly discharged for payment of the amount due thereon. If it is so, one would expect the complainants to have given notice to the opposite parties to produce the original fixed deposit receipts signed by the complainants. At least, one would expect a copy of the letter from the complainants to the effect that the receipts have been sent duly discharged for encashment. We do not find any such document forthcoming from the complainants. Excepting the interested version of the complainants, we have nothing on record to accept the contention of the complainants that they invested the said sum towards Fixed Deposit with the opposite parties. If the complainants had anything to do with the opposite parties it is surprising that the complainants should send the fixed deposits duly discharged without obtaining an acknowledgement for the same. Further, the proximity of the dates of deposits would also go to show that there is something to be said in favour of the opposite parties when they contend that the amounts were paid towards the purchase of shares. Though the observation of the lower Forum that the opposite party is prohibited from accepting deposits cannot be upheld in view of the provisions of the Companies Act which provides that in case of private companies to accept deposits from members as well as from relatives. In view of the fact that the basic structure of the complainants case stand on the allegation that the fixed deposits, which create serious doubts about the credibility of the version and as no attempt has been made by the complainants to establish the averments made in their complaint excepting to file letters and notices which have been replied by the opposite parties, the lower Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal.

CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal will stand dismissed confirming the order of the lower Forum. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.