MOLU RAM RADHA KISHAN vs Ravinder Kumar Gupta

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') is directed against order dated 27.2.2001 passed by District Forum (Central) ISBT, in Complaint Case No. 943/2000 entitled Ravinder Kumar Gupta v. M/s. Molu Ram Radha Krishan, whereby appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited by the respondent with the appellant vide two separate cheques along with interest @ 15% p.a. and cost of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses.

RESPONDENT had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum stating that he is proprietor of M/s. Ravinder Traders, Naya Bazar, Delhi and is carrying on business of commission agent. He was approached by appellant Shri Laxmi Narain, proprietor of M/s. Molu Ram Radha Krishan, Naya Bazar, Delhi for a term deposit in the month of April, 1998 with an assurance that the amount deposited would be secure and returnable on a day''s notice. RESPONDENT was lured into depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was paid to appellant vide Cheque No. 558245 dated 27.4.1998 drawn on Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, Delhi. The said amount was to carry interest @ 1.60 paise per hundred per month and the deposit was for a fixed period of three months. A similar amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited with the respondent on 28.4.1998 vide Cheque No. 558246 dated 28.4.1998 drawn on the aforesaid Bank carrying same rate of interest and the deposit was for a period of one month. Both the cheques were received by the appellant vide Receipt Nos. 64 and 65 dated 27.4.1998 and 28.4.1998 respectively. On maturity of the term deposit, the respondent approached the appellant many times for payment along with interest but he did not pay the amount and put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Notice was issued to the appellant who appeared and filed a short reply dated 7.10.1998 pleading therein that relationship between the parties was that of debtor and creditor and, therefore, appellant was not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. District Forum-I (North District Forum) vide order dated 16.11.1998 held that the objections raised by the appellant to the effect that relationship between the parties was that of debtor and creditor and, therefore, respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act was untenable. Against the order dated 16.11.1998, the appellant filed appeal before this Commission and vide order dated 7.1.1999, this Commission dismissed the appeal, filed by the appellant holding therein that the respondent was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter appellant filed a detailed reply on merits pleading therein that the amounts taken by him were loans simplicitor and, therefore, there was relationship of debtor and creditor between the appellant and the respondent. It was stated that the loan was for a short period and interest was exhorbitant and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

After receipt of file from the State Commission, appellant did not appear despite notices and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were taken against him and the complaint was decided ex parte in favour of respondent vide order dated 18.1.2000. Appellant filed appeal before this Commission against ex parte final order dated 18.1.2000 and this Commission vide order dated 6.10.2000 on the basis of statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte order dated 18.1.2000 passed by District Forum and the matter was remanded back to the Forum with the directions that the matter be disposed of on merits afresh after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard.

AFTER remand and receipt of the case file, Counsel for the parties were heard at length and the learned District Forum vide order dated 27.2.2001 directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited by the respondent vide two separate cheques and also to pay interest @ 15% p.a. besides awarding Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the material placed on record. We have also gone through the written submissions filed by the parties.

IT is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the permission of the Reserve Bank of India is required to run financial business by the finance companies, but no permission was taken by the appellant and, therefore, appellant cannot be said to be dealing in the business of taking money as term deposits. IT is, no doubt, true that financial companies are required to take permission of the Reserve Bank of India for inviting fixed deposits from the customers but there is no such bar for the individual to take money as fixed deposits with promise to pay the same on its maturity with agreed rate of interest. Since deposit was taken by the appellant from the respondent in an individual capacity, no permission was required to be taken by the appellant from the Reserve Bank of India. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned District Forum was bound to decide the point whether there was relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties when the matter was remanded to the learned District Forum vide this Commission order dated 6.10.2000 as order dated 6.10.2000 passed by this Commission was merged with its earlier order dated 7.1.1999. We have carefully considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant but are not inclined to accept the same. Vide order dated 6.10.2000, ex parte final order dated 18.1.2000 passed by the learned District Forum was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide the same on merits. The controversy whether there was relationship of debtor and creditor and that the respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, had been raised by the appellant by way of preliminary objections in its reply filed before the learned District Forum. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum vide detailed order dated 16.11.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 1217/1998 placing reliance on a decision of this Commission in case entitled Amrit Devi v. Trilochan Singh, reported as I (1994) CPJ 123, held that respondent is a consumer. This order was challenged in appeal before this Commission (Appeal No. A-1104/1998) and this Commission vide detailed order dated 7.1.1999 upheld the order passed by the learned District Forum and dismissed the appeal. As such, order of the District Forum deciding the preliminary objections raised by the appellant in favour of the respondent holding that there was no relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties had become final and, therefore, the said issue could not be reagitated before the District Forum and, therefore, the findings of learned District Forum on this issue are upheld. Admittedly, appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondent. The amount in question was paid through A/c payee cheques as referred above for which appellant had issued receipt dated 27.4.1998 in token of having received cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- and another receipt dated 28.4.1998 in token of having received Rs. 1,00,000/- through A/c payee cheque. Appellant was bound to return the amount with interest to respondent on expiry of the agreed period. In case, no period was prescribed, in that case, the appellant was required to pay the respondent on demand. It is not in dispute that the amount has not yet been paid by the appellant to the respondent till date. Appellant was legally and morally bound to pay the amount with interest to the respondent. As such, appellant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and his intention in not paying the deposited amount to the respondent is clearly mala fide. Appellant has raised technical pleas that the amount advanced by the respondent was a loan transaction and not term deposit. Case of the respondent is that he deposited the amount as fixed deposit. Except entry in the ledger of the appellant which document is prepared by the appellant himself, there is no other document to show that the transaction was a loan transaction. In case, the amount paid by the respondent to the appellant was a loan, in that case, appellant should have got executed a document from the respondent in this regard. On the contrary, appellant has issued receipts Exhibit C-I and Exhibit C-II wherein there is absolutely no mention that the amount taken by appellant from the respondent is a loan transaction. It is not understood as to what prevented the appellant in not stating in clear terms in the above mentioned receipts that amount was being taken as a loan. Respondent has affirmed in his affidavit that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was advanced to the appellant was a term deposit with agreed rate of interest as mentioned in the receipts Exhibit C-I and Exhibit C-II. The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation enacted by the Parliament for the better protection of consumers and, therefore, hyper-technical approach should not be adhered to respondent has affirmed in his affidavit that the amount was advanced as term deposit and the fact that in receipts Exhibit C-I and Exhibit C-II, there is no mention of the fact that amount taken by the appellant from the respondent was a loan transaction, the learned District Forum has rightly held that the amount deposited by the respondent with the appellant be refunded with 15% p.a. interest and cost.

THE amount in question deposited by the respondent with the appellant was utilised by the appellant in his business. As such, utilization of amount by the appellant is the consideration for availing of services of the appellant by the respondent. Non-payment of the amount to the respondent after the stipulated period constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. THE impugned order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the learned District Forum is a well-reasoned order wherein each point in issue has been discussed with clarity. THE same, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 15 of the Act. Accordingly, the order dated 27.2.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. C-943/2000 in case entitled Ravinder Kumar Gupta v. Molu Ram Radha Kishan, is upheld. THE appeal, filed by the appellant is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal, filed by the appellant against impugned order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the learned District Forum is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. THE appeal filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.