CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

MAHARASHTRA GROUP FINANCE CO. LTD. vs Sunil Kumar Agarwal

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 12 October 2004 · Citation: 2005 1 CLT 568

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.D.Shahi , Luxmi Singh J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 373 words
1.

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 18%.

2.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant got two accounts opened with the opposite party in the name of Km. Sweeti Devi and Surjeet Pal Agarwal. THE deposits were to be made in 54 instalments and the amount was to be refunded @ Rs. 10,000/- per account. THE complainant could know on 20.4.1987 that the branch of the company has been closed and the remaining instalments be deposited in the main branch at New Delhi. THE entire amount has been paid but the refund has not been made. Hence, the complaint was filed on 5.6.1993. THE complaint has been allowed on 7.2.1995, against which order the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The complainant is not a consumer in this case. He may have deposited the amount but the deposits have been made in the name of the Km. Sweeti Devi and Surjeet Pal Agarwal. They are the account holders. Payment can be made only to the account holders in their lifetime. The complainant is also not the beneficiary. He can be treated only as an agent. An agent is not a consumer. The payment can be made only to the account holders to whom it is payable. It is not payable to the complainant, therefore, he could not have filed the complainant. The complainant could have been dismissed merely on this ground and as such the appeal is fit to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 7.2.1995 is hereby quashed. The complaint is hereby dismissed. However the account-holders will have every right to realize their amount through Civil Court or otherwise and in that case the present shall not in any way be a handicap and observations passed in this complaint either by the District Forum or this Commission shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on any of the points involved in the case. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.