D.C.M.Ltd. vs SH.NEERAN SAWHNEY

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 18.11.1999, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 204/1999-entitled Sh. Neeran Sawhney v. D.C.M. Ltd. & Ors.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE respondent Shri Neeran Sawhney had made deposit with the appellant under a Scheme, floated by the appellant. THE deposit, so made, by the respondent with the appellant, was to carry interest and was payable after the date of maturity. Since the appellant failed to pay back the amount to the respondent even after the date of maturity, respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum for recovery of amount due to him from the appellant under the above-said scheme together with interest and cost. The claim of the respondent before the District Forum was contested by the appellant. The stand, taken by the appellant, before the District Forum, was that in view of the order passed by Company Law Board, fixing the schedule for repayment of deposits, made by the depositors, with the appellant, the complaint before a Fora, constituted under the Act, was not maintainable.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint of the respondent and has directed the appellant to pay back the amount in question to the respondent together with interest @ 15% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

WE have heard the Attorney of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, it was stated by the attorney of the appellant that the Company Law Board, Northern Region Bench, New Delhi in the matter of M/s. D.C.M. Ltd., New Delhi has already passed an order on 10.9.1998 fixing the schedule for the repayment to depositors. It was further stated by him that the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi in Company Application No. 01/99, in Company Appeal No. 50, 52/99, entitled Delhi Natik Nagrik Parishad (Regd.) v. D.C.M. Ltd. & Anr., has already passed an order dated 24.8.1999, fixing the instalments for the repayment of the amount due and payable to the depositors. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the orders passed by the Company Law Board and the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi, the complaint, filed by the respondent before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, was not maintainable and the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the above grounds alone. In so far as the plea, advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding the order of the Company Law Board, is concerned, the position is that in view of a recent decision of this Commission in Appeal No. A-916/98 entitled M/s. D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. v. Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta & Ors., decided on 9.12.1999, the abovesaid contention, advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance. As regards, the order of the Hon''ble High Court, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the position is that the abovesaid order of the Hon''ble High Court (copy at page 24 of the paper book) runs as under : "The learned Counsel for the respondent undertakes to pay the entire amount due to the petitioner in three monthly instalments with interest at the rate 11%. Each instalment shall be paid on or before 15th of each calender month and first instalment shall be paid on or before 15th September, 1999. In view of this, nothing further survives in this Company petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive the petition in case there is any default in payment by the respondent. All pending C. As. are also accordingly disposed of."

(Emphasis supplied)

AS regards the above order of the Hon''ble High Court the position is that in the first place it is nowhere stated that the respondent in the present appeal, was a party to the proceedings in the above mentioned Company Appeal before the Hon''ble High Court. Moreover, in terms of the above orders of the Hon''ble High Court and the undertaking given, the entire liability was to be liquidated in three monthly instalments and the first instalment was payable on or before 15.9.1999. In terms of the above order of the Hon''ble High Court the last instalment was to be paid on or before 15.11.1999. There is also nothing on record to indicate as to whether in terms of the order of the Hon''ble High Court and the undertaking given, payment to the depositors, including the respondent, has been made by the appellant. In view of the position explained above, the contentions, advanced at the Bar, by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of the case of the appellant, are devoid of substance. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of merit. The same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.