B.K.GUPTA vs Shakeel Ahmed

WE are proceeding to dispose of all these appeals with a common judgment since the appellant is common in all the matters, so also the factual matrix as obtained in these matters. Status of original O.P. is also identical. Claims of the original complainants involved in all these matters are identical. 4 different appeals have been filed since there are 4 different complaints. All the complainants are the investors/depositors of the original O.Ps. and complaints were required to be filed with a grievance that there was a failure on the part of the O.Ps. to honour their commitments and reimburse the invested amount by the respective complainants with accrued benefits as assured.

WE also further notice that all the orders also proceed on identical basis. (For brevity''s sake appellant hereinafter who is original O.P. No. 3, is referred to as "O.P. No. 3", respondents in all the complaints as "Investors/Depositors"). Complainants in all the complainants are Medical Practitioners and they having attracted to the scheme floated by the O.Ps. for investment joined the scheme and invested diverse amounts thereunder.

As the records shows, the scheme as was projected was lucrative one and certain benefits by way of interest was also assured.

O.P. No. 1 is a corporate entity of which O.P. No. 2 is present Managing Director and O.P. No. 3 who is appellant is its past Chairman. It is to be noted and this position has been reiterated by and on behalf of the Advocate of O.P. No. 3 that when the scheme was floated and the Investors/Depositors invested the amounts, the i.e., O.P. No. 3 was very much on the scene as Chairman of O.P. No. 1. It is noticed that the investors/depositors approached the District Forum in the above circumstances.

IT is further noticed that the District Forum issued its process to all the O.Ps. by transmitting the same through post and as the Forum records that despite service there was failure on the part of the O.Ps. to respond either by filing appearance or the written statement. Consequently District Forum proceeded to settle the consumer disputes on being satisfied of the material, which was placed before it by the investors/depositors and examination of the evidence supporting the investment and which aspect had remained unchallenged and uncontroverted there being no challenge by and on behalf of the O.Ps. and has made the awards in all the matters ordering the O.Ps. to refund the invested amount with interest @ 9% with effect from date of investment. The grievance, as far as present appellant/O.P. No. 3 is concerned, is that he was not served with the process of the District Forum, which as pointed out goes counter to the noting as made by the District Forum.

WE, therefore, asked the learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 3 on merits what will be the say of O.P. No. 3. It needs to be stated and in fairness it was pointed out that O.P. No. 3, present appellant was not on the saddle when the complaints were filed as also the impugned orders were passed, he having resigned and as such ceased of being Director or Chairman of O.P. No. 1.

IT is however to be noted that when the deposits were accepted, he was very much on the saddle. As far as liability is concerned, on perusal of the grounds as set up in the appeal memos, there is no challenge as such to the merit of the claims. To be precise, say of the O.P. No. 3 is that it will be liability and the responsibility as well of O.P. No. 2 who is in custody and in charge of the assets of the O.P. No. 1.

As it emerges and as noticed hereinabove, that there is no challenge to the merits of the claim in the respective complaints, which even otherwise is well documented and substantiated as recorded by the District Forum, we do not think it necessary to deviate from the view/findings as rendered by the District Forum in the impugned judgments.

AS far as point raised by and on behalf of the O.P. No. 3 present appellant that presently he is no more concerned with O.P. No. 1 and that the assets of O.P. No. 1 are with O.P. No. 2. In our view that aspect can be brought forth at the stage of execution proceedings if there be. As stated, since on merits complainants have good case and on the basis whereof, District Forum has made the awards in the respective matters, we do not find any merits in all these appeals and with clarification as above proceed to dismiss the same. ORDER 1. Appeal Nos. 286, 287, 288 and 289/2003 respectively in Complaint Nos. 664/2001, 665/2001, 666/2001 and 5/2002 stand dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. Appeals dismissed.