MASTER TRUST LTD. vs REETA VERMA

THIS appeal, filed by M/s. Master Trust Ltd., SCO Nos. 22 - 23, IInd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh (U.T.) is directed against the order dated 3.7.2000 in Complaint Case No. 457 of 1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II).

THE facts in brief are as under : THE appellant/complainant, Mrs. Reeta Verma resident of H. No. 230, Sector 17, Panchkula - 134109, joint holder with Mrs. Vimla Verma deposited Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque No. 1424506 dated 2.2.1998 drawn on Bank of India, Panchkula branch with maturity date 2.2.1999 with respondents/opposite parties for a period of one year. As per averments made by the respondent/complainant, inter alia, the cheque was deposited with Master Trust Ltd., SCO Nos. 22-23, IInd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh (U.T.), impleaded as opposite party No. 3. THE above mentioned cheque was deposited by opposite party No. 3 with the collecting bankers i.e. Central Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh (U.T.), impleaded as opposite party No. 4 herein. THE FDR receipt No. D-7002404 issued by M/s. Asia Television Ltd., Prospect Chambers Annexe, Ground Floor, Pitha Street, Off : Sir, P.M. Road Fort, Mumbai, impleaded as opposite party No. 1, has been placed on record vide Annexure-A. THE respondent/complainant wanted to encash the FDR before the maturity date and a duly discharged receipt was sent by Speed Post on 6.10.1998 and the same was received by opposite party on 8.10.1998, copy of the same is appended on the record vide Annexure-B. THE case of the complainant, now respondent is that not only the FDR amount was not paid prematurely as requested by her but the same stood unpaid even after the due date of maturity consequent to which she was constrained to serve a legal notice on opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on 16th March, 1999 (Annexure-C). She has further alleged that under the terms of deposit she was entitled to monthly interest but she never received any amount towards the interest from the opposite parties She has prayed for the refund of maturity amount with 15% interest as stipulated and 18% interest on the total amount from the date of maturity till actual payment. Further a prayer for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to her and 3,000/- towards the costs of litigation have also been made. The case was not contested by the opposite parties in the District Forum-II and hence were proceeded against ex-parte. On 3.8.1999 a representative of opposite party No. 3 appeared in the District Forum-II but no reply was filed by him either. Since no relief was claimed against Central Bank of India, opposite party No. 4, hence they did not put in appearance.

The District Forum-II on the basis of averments made in the complaint and duly supported by affidavit and evidence adduced on record by the complainant, held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service due to non-payment of maturity amount. Opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were held liable to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 15% within one month from the date of order. The opposite parties were further burdened with costs of litigation. The opposite party No. 4 was exonerated from the liability on the plea of being only a collecting banker of opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

AGGRIEVED against the above order, the present appeal was filed by Master Trust Ltd., impleaded as opposite party No. 3 in the complaint, on the ground that complainant had a limited role of collecting agents and was entrusted with the job of supplying the application forms through its Associate concern, M/s. Harjeet Arora and Company. The appellant has further averred that since FDR was received by respondent No. 1, M/s. Asia Television Network from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and duly discharged FDR for premature encashment and also after maturity date, the requests for repayment sent to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 directly clearly establishe the role of the appellant. Even the legal notice was served only on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after the maturity amount remained unpaid, in reply to which respondent No. 2 directly requested respondent No. 1 to extend the period of deposit, prove beyond doubt that appellant had a very limited role of supplying the application forms and forwarding the same to the Company, M/s. Asia Television Network. The appellant has also averred in para No. 4 of the grounds of appeal that in no way appellant or its associate concern M/s. Harjeet Arora and Company was in picture after the respondent No. 1 took the application form and the cheque was submitted to the Bankers. No amount was received or invested in the books of the appellant, hence it cannot be fastened with any liability for repayment. Appellant has further averred that it had explained its position and role in the above transaction verbally before the Forum and since the appellant was not asked to file a written reply, no reply was filed and subsequently did not attend the proceedings of the Forum due to that reason. A prayer has been made to set aside the order of the Forum to the extent it relates to the appellant. A perusal of the complaint, various annexures adduced as evidence and the affidavit of the complainant brings us to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant has a merit as it is established from the record that it performed a very limited role of supplying the forms and submitting the deposited amount onward to respondent No. 2. Even the complainant now respondent No. 1, has not claimed any relief against the appellant and no deficiency in services rendered by it has been alleged against it. Further in reply to the legal notice given by the complainant on 8.4.1999 the request to extend the period of deposit was made by complainant/respondent No. 1 directly to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and not through the appellant, which further clarifies the role of the appellant in the transaction. On the basis of the reasons stated above all the above cited factors make it amply clear that appellant was only an authorised collecting agent for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and its role was over after the collected amount was sent to respondent No. 2 as has been proved by the facts and evidence on record. In our considered view, the order of the District Forum-II is not based on correct appraisal of facts insofar as the liability of the appellant is concerned. The District Forum-II was not legally justified in holding the appellant conjointly liable for the repayment of the money which has been undisputedly received by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and no part of it accrued to the appellant.

ON the grounds mentioned above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum-II is modified to the extent to exonerate the appellant from the liability of repayment of maturity amount and the costs as directed along with M/s. Asia Television Network Ltd. and Managing Director, Asian Television Network Ltd., opposite party Nos. 1 and 2/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum-II is modified to the extent explained above. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.