Modern Terry Towels Ltd. vs R.K. SINGH

THE above two appeals have been filed by the appellant assailing a common order, dated 5.7.2000, passed by District Forum No. VI (New Delhi) in Complaint Case Nos. 1548/1999 and 1548/1999 entitled Shri R.K. Singh v. M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. and Ms. Savitri v. M/s Modern Terry Towels Ltd., respectively.

THE relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs. 16,000/- each with the appellant in a Fixed Deposit for six months to be refunded together with agreed rate of interest on maturity to the respondents. However, since the appellant failed to pay back the maturity value of the Fixed Deposits to the respondents, the respondents filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), before the District Forum for the recovery of the same. Notice under registered cover was issued to the appellant by the District Forum but since the same was not received back undeliverd, and none appeared on behalf of the appellant before the District Forum, appellant was proceeded ex-parte.

The District Forum allowed the complaints of the respondents, with directions to the appellant to pay the balance amounts of Rs. 12,000/- in respect of each F.D.R. together with agreed rate of interest from 2.10.1999 till realisation to respondent Shri R.K. Singh and from 17.9.1999 till realisation to Smt. Savitri Singh. It was also directed that a cost of Rs. 500/- be paid in each case by the appellant to the abovesaid respondents.

AGGRIEVED by the impugned order the appellant has preferred the present appeals before us, under Section 15 of the Act. Notice of the appeals was issued to the respondents who have entered appearance. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record as well as have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties.

THOUGH this Commission has consistently held the view that Fora under the Act are not debarred from entertaining cases in which the Company Law Board is already seized of the matter and has formulated a scheme for re-payment of the amounts due to the creditors, but there is a recent decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in I (2001) CPJ 41 (NC)=Revision Petition Nos. 2184-2206/1999 entitled M/s. Allianze Capital & Management Services Ltd. v. B.P. Grover and Ors., decided on 9.11.2000 wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble National Commission : "The Company Law Board is now seized of the matter in dispute. It has been stated on behalf of the Company that the petitioner Company is adhering to the scheme of payment framed by the Company Law Board. Since the Company Law Board is seized of the matter, we will not hear the case any further. The matter is disposed of finally as above. Any grievance about non-payment according to the schedule drawn by the Company Law Board can be raised before the Company Law Board."

(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Apex Commission the remedy of the respondents lies before the Company Law Board as the Company Law Board is already seized of the matter and has formulated a scheme for scheduling re-payments to the various creditors of the appellant Company. In the circumstances, the present appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is hereby set aside. However, in terms of the orders of the Hon''ble National Commission referred to above the respondents are given the liberty to approach the Company Law Board for redressal of their grievances, if so advised. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. The present Appeal Nos. A-2018/2000 and A-2019/2000 are disposed of in above terms. Appeals allowed.