KUNDAN LAL SHARMA vs COL. H.S. BOPARAE

THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No. 555 of 1999, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma, House No. 3225, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh v. Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.), Regional Manager of Aneja Group/Consultancy, residence : H. No. 148, Sector-2, Panchkula (Previous Office Address : SCO 52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh) and Inderjit Aneja, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Aneja Group/Consultancy, previous address : SCO 52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, residence address : Inderjit Aneja s/o Bagmal Aneja, Plot No. 10-A, Road No. 8, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (A.P.).

THE District Forum-I has allowed the complaint and found the opposite party No. 2 deficient in service and the opposite party No. 2 has been directed to make payment to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) has been directed to make all efforts to get the refund. However, no personal liability has been fastened on opposite party No. 1. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I, the appellant/complainant, Mr. Kundan Lal Sharma filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying that respondent No. 1, who was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum-I be held liable to make the payment to the appellant/complainant.

The appellant/complainant, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma had filed complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act before the District Forum-I making averments, inter alia, as under :

THE complainant, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in a fixed deposit scheme floated by Aneja Consultancy having its office at SCO No. 52, Sector-20, Chandigarh vide receipt No. 956 dated 29.11.1996 issued by the Aneja Consultancy. THE photocopy of the receipt is placed on record with the complaint case. THE respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy issued post-dated cheques of Rs. 15,000/- being principal amount and interest amount of Rs. 4,350/- in order to discharge their ensuing liability of matured value of the deposits. THEse cheques were issued through respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.), Regional Manager of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy. On presenting these cheques to the bankers after the matured date, the same were bounced, hence the complainant, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma filed a complaint in the District Forum-I alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. THE complainant had prayed in his original complaint that the opposite parties are liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- and interest amount of Rs. 4,350/- for which post-dated cheques were issued by the opposite party No. 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 has filed reply to the complaint case while opposite party No. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum-I. The opposite party No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) contended in his written statement that he was only an employee of the opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy so no personal liability can be fastened on him. The liability to refund the amount lies only with the opposite party No. 2, with whom the appellant/complainant deposited the sum of Rs. 15,000/-.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. P.L. Sanghi, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. V.P. Chatrath, Advocate. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. WE have also gone through the entire record of the complaint case and documents adduced therein with utmost care and circumpection. The only point that this Commission is required to settle in the appeal is to find out if respondent No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) is also liable for the refund of the money deposited by the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.L. Sanghi, Advocate has contended that the District Forum-I has not appreciated that respondent No. 1. Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) was not only a Regional Manager of the respondent No. 2, Aneja Consultancy but he is one of the share holders of the Aneja Consultancy who has been carrying out the business on behalf of the Aneja Consultancy independently. He drew the attention of the Commission to the cheques issued by respondent No. 2 in which Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) himself has signed all the cheques. Hence the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that respondent No. 1. Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) is very much liable to pay to the complainant partly or jointly the sum of Rs. 15,000/- along with the interest amount of Rs. 4,350/- for which post-dated cheques were issued. Mr. V.P. Chatrath, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has drawn our attention regarding the issue of the receipt of the cheques which were basically issued by the Aneja Consultancy, respondent No. 2 and not by Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.), who was only the employee of respondent No. 2. Mr. V.P. Chatrath, Advocate has further contended that the District Forum-I has rightly held respondent No. 2, Aneja Consultancy as deficient in service after perusing the entire record.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum-I has rightly held respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy liable for the deficiency in service. We do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the District Forum-I. This appeal lacks merit and is resultantly dismissed with no order as to costs.

COPY of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.