BANKA FINANCE AND INVESTMENT SERVICE vs SUCHA SINGH BHATI

THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 13.6.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 862 of 1998.

THE complainant/respondent No. 1 Shri Sucha Singh Bhatti deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with opposite party No. 1 of the complaint i.e. Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. c/o ATN Arihant International Ltd., through its Managing Director Sh. Parmod Jain, No. 161, 204, Thapar House, Community Centre, Gulmohar Enclave, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi and the appellant - Banka Finance and Investment Service, Pachhi House (F.F.) SCO No. 98-99-100, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through Shri Surinder Kumar Jindal, proprietor. THE said deposit of Rs. 15,000/- was for a period of 12 months and was made on 9.10.1996. THE said deposit carried interest at the rate of 15% per annum. THE maturity value of the said deposit was mentioned as Rs. 17,412/- in the deposit receipt Annexure C-1 and it was to become payable on 8.11.1997. After the said deposit matured for payment, the complainant applied for the payment of the maturity value of Rs. 17,412/-. It was averred that the complainant was, however, made to reinvest the amount of principal sum of deposit of Rs. 15,000/- for a further period of six months and he was assured prompt payment of interest of Rs. 2,412/-. THE respondent No. 2 Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. issued a cheque dated 8.10.1997 but the same was taken back as the date of the cheque had expired and no payment of the cheque was made to him. THEreafter another cheque was issued on 8.4.1998 for a sum of Rs. 16,155/- as the maturity amount of the deposit reinvested by the complainant and which became due for payment on 8.4.1998. THE said cheque was presented to the Banker for collection but it was returned with the remarks that the account had been attached by the I.T.O. (Income Tax Officer). THE complainant was thus unable to get the payment of the maturity value and interest and as such he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh by filing the complaint which was registered at No. 862 of 1998. THE complainant claimed payment of the maturity value with interest and also compensation for harassment and costs of litigation. Notices were issued to the opposite parties of the complaint i.e. Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. and the appellant - Banka Finance and Investment Service. The reply was however filed by the appellant - Banka Finance and Investment Service but Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. did not file any reply nor put in appearance before the District Forum and the case proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1. The appellant filed reply before the District Forum and contended, inter alia, that the appellant acted merely as an agent of Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. and did not accept any amount for rendering services to the complainant. It was alleged that the appellant acted merely as an agent of the opposite party No. 1 in the matter of collection of money. The appellant was not liable to make any payment of the maturity value and interest to the complainant.

The District Forum held the appellant/complainant as also Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. liable jointly and severally to make the payment of a sum of Rs. 2,412/- by way of interest and a sum of Rs. 16,155/- due as maturity amount on 8.4.1998. Both the opposite parties in the complaint were directed to pay interest of the total amount so due to the complainant @ 12% per annum from 8.4.1998 till payment. The costs of the complaint amounting to Rs. 500/- were also awarded.

BANKA Finance and Investment Service, opposite party No. 2 in the complaint has now come up in appeal against the order of the District Forum. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has put in appearance through Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, however, respondent No. 2 - Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. did not put in appearance despite service of notice of appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. B.B. Mittal, Advocate for the appellant and have heard Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate. appearing for respondent No. 1/complainant. We have also perused the order of the District Forum and the record of the case which was summoned.

IT is evident from the averments made in the complaint that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited by the complainant in response to an invitation of Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. and the said amount was collected by the appellant/opposite party No. 1 - Banka Finance and Investment Service who acted for and on behalf of opposite party No. 1 - Arihant Credit Capital Ltd., in capacity of duly authorised agent. The averments made in the complaint further show that the deposit receipt dated 9.10.1996 bearing No. 111824 signed by the authorised signatory was issued to the complainant by Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. As per the Deposit Receipt aforesaid, the complainant was to receive a sum of Rs. 17,412/- as an amount payable on maturity i.e. 8.11.1997. The deposit was made for a fixed term of 12 months @ 15% per annum interest. The photocopy of the fixed deposit receipt was annexed as Annexure C-1. A bare perusal of Annexure C-1, the Deposit Receipt will go to show that it was issued by Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. and was signed by the authorised signatory of the Company-Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. IT is also apparent from the perusal of the Deposit Receipt (Annexure C-1) that the appellant i.e. Banka Finance and Investment Service was not a signatory to the Deposit Receipt. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant was unable to show by any reliable evidence on record that the appellant Company was in any way jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of maturity value and interest to the complainant along with the Finance Company i.e. Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. The deposit of the amount was primarily made with the Finance Company and not with the appellant. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was specifically mentioned that neither the opposite party No. 2 was beneficiary of the amount invested nor there is any deficiency in service on its part as neither any consideration was paid to the opposite party No. 2 nor the complainant has anywhere stated that the F.D.R. and Cheque were not issued to him. IT was averred in Para 8 of the reply, inter alia, as under : "Opposite party-1 was the beneficiary of the amount or amounts invested and that opposite party-1 had issued the cheques to the complainant and that neither opposite party-2 was the beneficiary of the amount invested nor there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party-2 as neither any consideration was paid to opposite party-2 nor the complainant has anywhere stated that the FDR and cheques were not issued to him. The company Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. i.e. opposite party-1 had sent the FDR and the post-dated refund and interest warrants to the complainant and the complainant at no stage given any notice to either the defaulting company opposite party-1 nor opposite party-2."

The District Forum however did not consider this aspect of the matter but rejected the case of the appellant by making the following observations in Para 5, inter alia. : "...The opposite parties are clearly guilty of deficiency of service by not making repayment of the principal amount as well as the interest promised thereon to the complainant. The reply filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that it has no liability in the matter, is untenable as it is jointly and severally liable along with opposite party No. 1 being its agent. That being the position, the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs. 500/- with a direction to the opposite parties to make payment of Rs. 2,412/- due to the complainant by way of interest promised on the deposit for the initial period as also Rs. 16,155/- due as maturity amount on 8.4.1998. The opposite parties shall further pay interest on the total amount so due to the complainant at the rate of 12% p.a. from 8.4.1998 till payment."

It will appear from the observations of the District Forum that the case of the appellant that it did not promise any services to be rendered to the complainant as it had not charged any amount from the complainant for the said deposit, was not taken into consideration. The District Forum not give any reasons much less cogent and valid reasons to hold the appellant jointly and severally liable to make the payment alongwith the Finance Company - Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. Besides it, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in Bharat Motor v. Usha Rani Samal & Anr., I (1995) CPJ 33 (NC), wherein it was held : "...The dealer of the manufacturing company was not liable for the refund of the money deposited by the complainant." Dealing with the case of the dealer, the Hon''ble Commission held as under : "The order for refund should have been passed only against the manufacturer who was also a party before the State Commission and is also a party in this appeal. We set aside the order of the State Commission in so far as it is directed against the appellant herein namely the dealer and make it clear that the order for refund of the money, passed by the State Commission will remain in force and will be enforceable only as against the second respondent M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd."

Our view gets ample support from the judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission. Accordingly, we allow this appeal to the extent that the appellant - Banka Finance and Investment Service is not held liable for the payments of the amount and interest which have been directed to be paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1 by the District Forum, jointly and severally with the Finance Company - Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent indicated above. The order of the District Forum for the payment of the maturity value and interest shall be valid and enforceable only against the Finance Company - Arihant Credit Capital Ltd. Appeal allowed.