M/S. NAVA CHAKRA FINANCE & ORS. vs P. SATHYANARAYANAN & 4 ORS.

Respondents/Complainants filed separate consumer complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore (for short, ''District Forum'') alleging deficiency in service on the part of Petitioners/Opposite Parties.

District Forum, vide order dated 23.2.2011 dismissed all the complaints with liberty to the complainants to seek remedy elsewhere, if so advised, under the law.

Being aggrieved, complainants filed separate appeals before Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, ''State Commission'').

The State Commission disposed of all appeals by common impugned order dated 17.7.2014, observing that all 15 appeals relate to the same subject matter and issues involved are one and the same. It allowed the appeals of the complainants and set aside the order of the District Forum.

Hence, present revisions.

I have heard the ld. counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.

Case of complainants is, that they had deposited certain amount with the Petitioners Company on their promise to pay interest at the rate of 19%. Accordingly, petitioners issued deposit receipts in the name of the respondents. Thereafter, petitioners used to pay interest till May 2002 as agreed at 19% p.a. on the deposit amounts. Subsequently, on 12-3-2003, petitioners sent a letter admitting the receipt of the deposit amounts from the respondents and requesting to treat the deposit amounts from the earlier position of deposits, as cumulative deposits for 7 years from 01-06-2002. The maturity date was to be 30-05-2009. As per statements sent by petitioners, the maturity amounts were to be paid with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of maturity. But petitioners did not pay the money. In the meantime, petitioners filed Civil Suits just to evade the payment of deposit maturity amounts, seeking different reliefs in those suits. The non-payment of maturity amount, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.

It has been contended by ld. counsel for the petitioners that letter dated 12.3.2003 is a fabricated document and same has already been put in question by the petitioners. De hors that letter, all other materials pointed at a private arrangement of letting out of premises. The impugned order, passed solely based on the abovesaid letter therefore, deserves to be set aside.

Further, State Commission ignored the fact that complaints were a counterblast to the suit filed prior in point of time in which the issue involved was the same as the issue involved in the complaint.

State Commission in its impugned order observed; "We have to note that the deposit receipt Ex.A1 issued by the respondents/opposite parties to the appellants/ complainants, and the letter Ex.A2 sent by the 2 nd respondent / 2 nd opposite party to the complainants are admitted by the opposite parties and there is no dispute about it. Therefore, the opposite parties are bound to honour Ex.A1, which is the deposit receipt and the letter Ex.A2, dated 12-03-2003, converting the maturity amount of the deposits as cumulative deposits for a period of 7 years.

The only contention of the opposite parties is that they have filed Civil Suits which are pending, and so the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints; and that the complaints are liable to be dismissed on this score. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A1 and A2 are admitted documents which are not disputed by the opposite parties. Therefore, we have to decide only whether the complaints are maintainable before the Consumer Forum in view of the pending civil suits filed by the opposite parties, as contended by the opposite parties. The District Forum has relied on the following two decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission to hold that the complaints are not maintainable since the Civil Suits are pending:

2009 (CTJ) 165-(CP)-(NCDRC)

2009-(CPJ)-294-(CP)-(NCDRC)

It is relevant to note that as per Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Act is not in derogation of any other law, which reads as follows:-

" Sec 3 : Act, not in derogation of any other law - The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force"

Further, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down in the case of Aravind Mills Limited vs. M/s Associated Flower Mills, 2004 (3) CTC-127 as follows:

"The remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law."

Therefore, it is clear that the complaints are maintainable in view of Sec 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.

We have to further note that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such complaints need not be relegated to Civil Courts, as follows: CCI Chambers Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd v. Development Credit Bank Ltd - 2003 (4) CTC 299

"Fora have been established and conferred with jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts: - - - Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some question of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors or any forum under the Act to the person aggrieved: - - - It is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary enquiry that a forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The fora made available under the Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force".

"The three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & others case (2002-3-CTC-558) specifically dealt with the issue as to the guidelines which would determine the matter being appropriately dealt with by a forum under the Act or being left to be heard and decided by a Civil Court. We do not think that mere complication either of facts or law can be a ground for the denial of hearing by a forum under the Act".

"In Dr. J.J. Merchant & others'' case, this Court dealing with the contention that complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings held - ''this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that the Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Courts. .............. It would also be a totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of fact are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards''".

Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. vs. Shreenath Chatturvedi 2002 (iii) CTC-558 (SC)

"Jurisdiction - Objects of formation of Consumer Forum and desirability of relegating disputes relating to deficiency in service to Civil Courts on account of delay - such Forum has been established to discharge functions of Civil Courts - delay in disposal of cases - by such Forum does not justify relegation of disputes to Civil Courts".

Therefore, in view of the above decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we hold that the complaints are maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

On facts, Ex.A1 and A2 are admitted documents and therefore, we hold that it is incumbent on the opposite parties to abide by the terms of Ex.A1 and A2, and accordingly they are bound to pay the maturity amount with future interest to the complainants from the date of maturity viz. 30-5-2009 as follows;

FA No. Maturity Amounts Due as on 30-05-2009

495 / 2011 Rs.1,16,500/

496 / 2011 Rs. 29,125/-

497 / 2011 Rs.1,16,500/-

498 / 2011 Rs. 69,900/-

499 / 2011 Rs.1,16,500/-

500 / 2011 Rs. 29,125/-

501 / 2011 Rs.4,66,000/-

502 / 2011 Rs.2,33,000/-

503 / 2011 Rs. 29,125/-

504 / 2011 Rs.1,16,500/-

505 / 2011 Rs. 29,125/-

506 / 2011 Rs.1,16,500/-

507 / 2011 Rs. 29,125/-

508 / 2011 Rs.2,33,000/-

509 / 2011 Rs.6,99,000/-

The District Forum has observed in the order that the opposite parties have sought only other different reliefs in the Civil Suits filed by them and not the reliefs sought for in the complaints; but however, having so observed, the District Forum has erred in holding that the complaints are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum since the Civil Suits are filed by the 2 nd opposite party. Accordingly, the orders of the District Forum are liable to be set aside.

The complainants have claimed interest at the rate of 18% p.a.; however in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the rate of interest viz. 18% from the date of maturity of the cumulative deposits is on the higher side, and so we are inclined to reduce the interest from 18% to 9% p.a. from the date of maturity.

In the result, the appeals are allowed, setting aside the orders of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity amounts with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity viz. 30-05-2009 till realization." 11. In the grounds of revision, main plea of petitioners is that, letter dated 12.3.2013 (A-1) is a forged one. It was never signed by the petitioners.

In this regard it would be pertinent to mention here, that complainants in their complaints have specifically pleaded that;

"Subsequently on 12.3.2003 the opposite party No.2 have personally wrote a letter as in the capacity of partner of the opposite party No.1 to the complainant stating that admitting the deposits received from the complainant and also in that the opposite party No.2 has expressed the opposite party''s practical business difficulties and also dull moment of collection from the customers and also accepted to treat the deposit amount of the complainant from its earlier position of deposit to Cumulative deposit for 7 years from 01-06-2002 to 30-05-2009 and also the 2 nd opposite party agreed to repay the deposited amount with interest on 30-05-2009. Further this opposite party has enclosed the statement to the Auditor concerned and the copy of which is also sent to the complainant."

In response, the petitioners in their written statement did not controvert at all the above averments made by the complainants.

Letter Exhibit A-1, states;

"12/03/2003

From

P. Murugesan,

P/o Sri Chakra Financiers,

P/o Suba Chakra Investments,

P/o Nava Chakra Finance,

P/o Jaichakra Investmens,

P/o Eswari Business Promoters

Eshwari Investment & Finance,

M.M. Building, 96, Raja Street, Coimbatore - 641 001.

To

Mr. P. Sathyanarayanan,

No.11A, Lokmanya Street,

R.S. Puram

Coimbatore - 641 002.

Sub: Deposit Pronotes in your name, your family''s name and in your business concern''s name in our company.

Sir,

I, P. Murugesan, younger brother, states to his elder brother Mr. P. Sathyanarayanan as follows: That you have in your name, your wife''s name, your family''s name and your business concern''s name deposited money in my various firm run by me in the above said single address.

We have paid interest till May 2002 and the same has also been received by you. After the said period, due to income slowing down in my above stated business enterprises, I was unable to pay interest after May 2002.

In order to solve the situation amicably both of us had met in person. I had suggested that all the deposits -Principal sum as well as the interest shall be converted as a Cumulative Deposit for a period of 7 years and the same shall be refunded at the end of the tenure. This suggestion had also been accepted by you.

Further, you had stated over the phone that your Auditor required the details of our understanding in a statement. Therefore I am enclosing the statement. Please receive the same.

Yours truly.

P. Murugesan

SD/-

Name of the concern Total amount invested Total Maturity Amount

Sri Chakra Financers 2,12,500/- 4,95,125/-

Suba Chakra Investments 80,000/- 1,86,400/-

Nava Chakra Finance 4,25,000/- 9,90,250/-

Eswari Business Promoters 1,00,000/- 2,33,000/-

Eswari Investment & Finance 2,00,000/- 4,66,000/-

Jai Chakra Investments 25,000/- 38,250/-

Grand Total 10,42,500/- 24,29,025/-"

Since, there is no denial with regard to the execution of Letter (A-1) on behalf of petitioners, therefore it stand clearly established that the petitioners have to pay the due amounts to the complainants.

Hence, this defence of the petitioners, that civil suits filed by them are pending and present consumer complaints are a ccounter blast, has no leg to stand in such circumstances.

It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under this section, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; " Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora . "

The State Commission in its impugned order has dealt with all the relevant issues in great detail. I fully agree with the reasoning given by the State Commission and do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity or illegality, in the impugned order. Accordingly, present revisions are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in each case.

Costs be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account'' of this Commission within six weeks, failing which petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

List on 6.2.2015 for compliance.