MODERN GROUP OF INDUSTRIES vs BHANWAR LAL BHAVsAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Udaipur dated 8.12.1998 in Complaint No. 469/98 filed by the respondent and which has been allowed by the learned District Forum directing the appellant to pay to the respondent the amount of Rs. 13,500/- invested by the respondent in Time Deposit Scheme floated by the appellant along with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. 1.10.1998 till payment besides awarding cost of litigation at Rs. 200/-.

FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the respondent had originally invested an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the appellant for a period of 12 months repayable with interest @ 15% p.a. When the aforesaid amount was not paid by the appellant after the date of its maturity, the respondent initially filed a complaint before the District Forum. That complaint was disposed of by a compromise between the parties whereby the appellant had promised to pay the amount due to the respondent in terms of the directions given by the Company Law Board in such matters. The appellant, however, refunded only 10% of the deposited amount but failed to pay the balance. A demand was made by the respondent vide his communication dated 27.9.1998 to refund the rest of the amount also as per the scheme laid down by the Company Law Board. When the appellant failed to honour his communication, he had to approach the learned District Forum. The District Forum after consideration of the matter, decreed the claim of the respondent as stated earlier. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as none appeared on behalf of the respondent despite due notice and perused the material on record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly challenged the order of the learned District Forum on three grounds. Firstly that the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Secondly that when the matter has already been settled between the parties through compromise in the earlier complaint, this complaint is not entertainable and thirdly that since the Company Law Board has laid down a scheme for repayment to its subscribers and the payment is being made accordingly; the complaint filed by the respondent was non-maintainable.

WE have given due thought and consideration to the controversy raised in this appeal. Earlier, the view of this Commission has been that a complaint of such a nature is not entertainable but now after the pronouncement of Hon''ble the National Commission in the case of Lloyds Finance Ltd. v. Ms. Napeena Singh, (2003) 5 CLD 136 (NCDRC); it has now been settled that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act is also entertainable under the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, the argument to the contrary is not acceptable and is rejected. The plea that the matter has already been settled through a compromise between the parties in the earlier complaint, is also not, acceptable. Even in terms of the compromise, it was agreed between the parties that the appellant shall refund the total amount of the respondent being a person of elderly age and not keeping good health and that too the payment in such cases would be made on immediate basis. It is established on record that the respondent had written to the appellant on 27.9.1998 to pay the remaining amount but the appellant did not refund the balance amount and instead through its reply filed to the complaint on 26.11.1998 has tried to contest it. In our view, when the appellant has falled to honour the compromise and also in refunding the rest of the amount, inspite of written request by the respondent, the respondent was within his right to approach the District Forum for seeking the requisite relief. The contention to the contrary made by the appellant is also rejected.

THE plea that the payment is being made by the appellant as per the scheme laid down by the Company Law Board in such matters is also without any basis since in terms of the directions of the Company Law Board also, there is a specific direction that in cases of aged, elderly and persons not keeping good health, the amount would be paid on priority basis whereas the appellant has failed to comply with the aforesaid direction as also agreed to by it in the compromise entered into earlier complaint. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned District Forum in its impugned order. Consequently, the appeal fails with cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.