Golden Forests India Limited vs Nasib Kaur Chakkal

IT is an appeal against the order dated 12.7.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent Company, Golden Forests (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called the opposite party) had made advertisements to receive fixed/cumulative deposits under various schemes introduced by them from general public. The complainant had deposited certain amounts with the opposite party, in lieu of which the opposite party had issued fixed deposit receipts. The details as mentioned in the complaint are as under : Date of deposit Amount deposited Date of maturity Maturity value FDR No 29.1.1999 Rs. 1,24,000/ - 29.1.2000 Rs. 1,45,080/ - 1216537 29.1.1999 Rs. 1,25,000/ - 29.1.2000 Rs. 1,46,250/ - 1220924 6.4.1999 Rs. 50,000/ - 6.4.2000 Rs. 58,500/ - 1246279

The complainant had approached the opposite party to get the maturity value after the maturity date; but the opposite party had not paid the amount and non -payment of amount by the opposite party was a deficiency in service on their party. A prayer was made in the complaint that the opposite party be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 2,91,330/ - and Rs. 58,500/ - with future interest and compensation.

OPPOSITE party on appearance filed the reply. Deposit of the amount by the complainant was not specifically denied. It had been pleaded in the reply that the Company was in turmoil due to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for brevity, SEBI) which ultimately caused intervention of Honble High Court of Bombay. In a Writ Petition No. 344 of 1998 filed by SEBI in the Honble High Court of Bombay, orders were passed from time to time. In terms of order dated 16.2.2000 the Company and the investors were directed to comply with those orders. It was then stated in the reply that the Honble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse, has been appointed as Receiver for sale of properties and thus the complainant could file claim before the said Receiver. It was then stated in the reply that in view of the orders of the Honble High Court of Bombay, this complaint was not maintainable. The District Forum laid down the following points for consideration : (i) Whether the complaint was not maintainable in view of the order of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petition No. 344 of 1998 ? (ii) Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not refunding the amount to the complainant ?

AFTER considering the whole matter, the District Forum has held that complaint is maintainable. On second point, it was held by the District Forum that the opposite party was deficient in service and was held liable to refund the amount due to the complainant. Ultimately, the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount in respect of two receipts i.e. Rs. 2,91,330/ - and Rs. 58,500/ - vide third receipt with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of maturity till actual payment. Complainant was allowed Rs. 500/ - as costs also. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has repeated the same arguments, which were taken up before the District Forum.

ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the appeal be dismissed with costs. Learned Counsel further submits that the property involved in the case in hand is entirely different from the property involved in the case before Honble High Court of Bombay, as mentioned by the Counsel for the appellant. Moreover, according to the Counsel for the respondent, the respondent was neither a party before the Bombay High Court nor any restraint was put by the Bombay High Court on the respondent to file a complaint before the District Forum for getting the required relief. The first submission of the Counsel for the appellant that as the complainant had paid the amount involved in the case to the opposite party not as a fixed deposits but as investment and it involved contractual obligations for which the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act was not available, has rightly been rejected by the District Forum. The complainant has specifically pleaded that she had deposited the amount for a period of 12 months, in lieu of which, the opposite party had issued fixed deposit receipts, copies of which are Exs. C -2 to C -4. A perusal of the receipts reveals that the deposit of the amount was not on investment basis. It is specifically stated in the receipts that the amounts of Rs. 1,24,000/ -, Rs. 1,25,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ - were received as security plus development/lease money and the maturity value payable on specific dates, i.e., on 29.1.2000 and 6.4.2000 was fixed at Rs. 1,45,080/ -, Rs. 1,46,250/ - and Rs. 58,500/ - respectively and it was a pure and simple fixed deposit. It has been held by the Honble National Commission in Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd. v. C.S. Menon, III (1993) CPJ 299 (NC), that when a Company or firm invites deposits promising attractive rates of interest, it amounts to rendering of financial service as it receives deposits from customers and pays interest thereon. In another case SOI Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Smt. Shyamala Khemani, II (2000) CPJ 275=2000 (1) CON.LT 631, it has been held that invitation of the Company or firm for deposits promising interest amounts to rendering financial service and deposit holder would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE District Forum has taken into consideration copies of various orders passed by the Honble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 344 of 1998 filed by SEBI against the opposite party therein and the appointment of Honble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (Retd.) as Receiver and has arrived at a decision that the complainant was not debarred from filing the present complaint and relief sought by the complainant before the District Forum could not be denied to her.

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The property mentioned in the case in hand is entirely different from the property involved in the case before the Honble Bombay High Court. The complainant is not a party to any proceedings before the Honble High Court of Bombay and there is no order of Honble High Court of Bombay staying the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act initiated by the consumer in the case in hand. Thus, the complainant could pursue her remedy before the District Forum legally. It stands proved vide receipts Exs. C -2 to C -4 that the complainant had deposited the amounts of Rs. 1,24,000/ - on 29.1.1999, Rs. 1,25,000/ - on 29.1.1999 and Rs. 50,000/ - on 6.4.1999 and the opposite party had given undertaking to her to pay maturity amount of Rs. 2,91,330/ - on 29.1.2000 and Rs. 58,500/ - on 6.4.2000. The opposite party did not deny the receipt of the amounts and it is proved on the record that the opposite party had not paid the maturity amounts, which act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/ -. Appeal dismissed with costs.