M.C.S.LTD vs HARI SINGH CHAUHAN

M.C.S. Ltd. New Delhi through the U.T.I. has come up in appeal against the order dated 11.9.1997 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Sonipat, whereby the complaint of Hari Singh Chauhan alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant has been allowed by passing the following direction: "I have heard the complainant in person and his Counsel and of the view that when MEP certificates have matured on 1.4.1996, thereafter it is the sweet will of the complainant to repurchase or not. He cannot be compelled b the respondent because at the time of purchase of these certificates there was no condition between the parties that after the date of maturity the complainant has to repurchase the certificates. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- and interest from 1.4.1996 on which date the certificate had matured at the rate of interest of 12% per annum from the date 1.4.1996 till the date of recovery and Rs. 2000/- as damages. Hence this complaint stands disposed of accordingly".

THE short grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he had purchased MEP-93 Unit Certificates - total 100 units of Rs. 10/- each - from M/s. M.C.S. Ltd. THEse MEP Units were to mature on 1.4.1996. Immediately after maturity, on 2.4.1996 the complainant intimated the opposite party that he was no longer interested in the repurchase of these certificates and the amount should be refunded to him. Despite that, the opposite party sent a communication dated 25.4.1996 asking the complainant to repurchase the certificates. However, the offer was declined by the complainant on 14.5.1996, but again after a month and a half the opposite party again wrote to the complainant on 25.6.1996 for the repurchase of these certificates. THE complainant once again declined the offer and after waiting for one and a half month she approached the District Consumer Forum for refund of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest with effect from 1.4.1996 and damages amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. Even though the opposite party was duly served and after service they did put in appearance but did not feel the necessity to contest the complaint, as a result whereof they were proceeded against ex parte. The complainant in order to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed his affidavit and after considering the matter the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint with the aforesaid direction.

In the appeal before us, Mr. Vikram Bhatia, Manager (Law) of the appellants'' organisation appeared and after hearing him we passed the following order on 26.3.1996: "Mr. Vikram Bhatia, Manager (Law) of the applicant states that the written statement was filed before the learned District Forum on 6.12.1996. However, in para 2 of the order of the learned District Forum it has been recorded as under- ''Respondent was served. After service, he appeared but did not contest the complaint and was proceeded ex parte.'' Notice to the respondent for 20th May, 1998. Send for the records also. In the meantime further proceedings before the learned District Forum shall remain stayed. Dasti". Resultantly, operation of the impugned order and the warrants issued shall also remain stayed meanwhile".

LATER on, an urgent application was filed on that very day to the effect, that it was not stated by the authorised representative that the written statement had been filed by the opposite party, i.e. the appellant; instead it was stated that all what was meant to convey was that the written statement had been sent by mail but the same was not available on the record. Obviously, we had sent for the records of the case (the judicial file from the District Consumer Forum) which admittedly did not contain any such written reply sent by the appellant by mail and that is why the District Consumer Forum has recorded in the order "that the respondent was served. After service, he appeared but did not contest the complaint and was proceeded ex parte. The filing of the present application by the appellant has not been appreciated by us. However, ignoring it with the indifference it deserves, we proceed further to examine the appeal on merits. After hearing the authorised representative of the appellant and having gone through the record, it is evident that the MEP Unit Certificates matured on 1.4.1996 and it was thereafter on 2.4.1996 that the complainant requested for the encashment as he was no longer interested in the repurchase of the same. Despite this, the appellant unnecessarily delayed the matter by writing to the complainant time and again to persuade him to repurchase these certificates which the complainant declined. Therefore, in the face of the aforesaid factual position, the conclusions arrived at by the District Consumer Forum and the directions issued while disposing of the complaint are wholly fair and just. Consequently, we do not find any cogent ground or legal infirmity in the detailed and wel1 reasoned order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2000/-. Appeal dismissed.