KAMLA DHALYLA vs A.V. HEGDE

THE appellant No. 1 deposited Rs. 5,000/- and appellant No. 2 Rs. 10,000/- in fixed deposits of one year each with the respondent. THE amount was not paid on maturity. THE appellant approached the District Forum seeking directions for refund of the FDs deposited by them by way of a complaint under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.12.2003 [Complaint No. 458/2002- Smt. Kamla Dhalya and Sh. Prem Singh v. Sh. A.V. Hegde and Others], passed by the District Forum (Central) on the ground that the respondent company had been restrained from making any payment by way of orders passed by three different authorities namely the BIFR, the Karnataka High Court and the Company Law Board.

WE have perused the orders passed by the aforesaid authorities. WE do not find any such directions which goes against the interest of the consumer. The appellants are entitled to the amount deposited by them as the relief sought under the Consumer Protection Act by a subscriber is on different pedestal than that by way of civil suit. The interest of the consumers are to be protected from being jeopardised by the unscrupulous providers of service and traders indulging in unfair trade practice. The Company Law Board has directed that the deposits together with upto date interest in respect of 423 subscribers including the appellants shall be paid in accordance with the sanction of the BIFR. The Counsel for the respondent states that the BIFR has sanctioned a scheme during the intervening period. However, vide order dated 7.3.2003 the BIFR has held that the deposit in the sick company made by the depositor is not a sum lent to the company but is a sum deposited with the company to be held in trust by the company till the time of maturity and, therefore, any claim made for return of a deposit made with the company cannot be termed as a suit for recovery of money due and, therefore, provision of Section 22(1) of SICA is not available to the sick company against a deposit.

In view of the above we allow the appeal with the directions to the respondent to pay the deposits made by the appellant in accordance with the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal allowed.