KAMLESH KUMAR TYAGI vs NARESH KUMAR TYAGI

Mr. Justice K.C.Bhargava, President

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 914/1998. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant deposited with opposite party Deepak Finance Company, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 17.12.1990 for 50 months. Thereafter on 18.12.1990 Rs. 9,000/- was deposited in the name of his wife and Rs. 7,000/- was deposited on 19.12.1990 in the name of his son for 50 months. After the expiry of above said period the double amount was to be given to the complainant. After the expiry of the aforesaid period when the complainant demanded the amount, the opposite party renewed the same for 30 months. In 1997 these deposits were matured and on demand the opposite party did not make the payment. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 52,000/- along with interest. The opposite party in its written version has admitted the deposit of the amount. It was stated that Gajraj Singh, a relative of the complainant got the FDR prepared in the name of the complainant. On 10.2.1993 Gajraj Singh came and stated that the complainant requires money hence payment be made. It is further alleged that as the amount was deposited by Gajraj Singh, therefore, the amount of Rs. 35,000/- was paid to Gajraj Singh which he has not returned so far. It was also alleged that the complaint is barred by limitation.

The parties led evidence before the District Forum who after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on the part of opposite party hence it decreed the claim of Rs. 52,000/- and interest @ 15% p.a. from 19.2.1995 till the date of payment. It has also awarded Rs. 3,000/- as cost and imposed Rs. 3,000/- as compensation.

AGGRIEVED against the said judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum the opposite party has come in appeal. We have heard the Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that Gajraj Singh is near relative of the complainant and he brought the money and deposited the same in the name of the complainant and an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was paid to him. This contention cannot be believed as the money was deposited in the name of the complainant.

THE Counsel for the appellant has further alleged that the Company was dissolved in 1993 hence there is no question of renewal. This plea had not been taken in the written version before the District Forum hence the same cannot be allowed at this stage. Thus we find that the finding of the District Forum on the question of refund of the amount is perfectly justified. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that District Forum has also awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation in addition to the interest. We are in agreement with the argument of the Counsel for appellant. As the interest has already been awarded there is no justification for awarding another sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and the same is liable to be struck down. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be partly allowed. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by District Forum shall be struck down. With this modification the rest of the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent towards cost of appeal. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal partly allowed.