PREETI LAKHANI vs GOLDEN FOREST (I) LIMITED

THE appellant felt aggrieved against the order dated 24.10.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 236 of 2002 filed by the appellant. THE complaint case was dismissed on the ground that she had not filed affidavit in support of her version and could not prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

THE complaint was filed against M/s. Golden Forest (I) Limited through Shri R.K. Syal, Managing Director c/o Superintendent, Burail Jail, Chandigarh (U.T.) seeking payment of maturity amount of the investment of Rs. 5,000/- on 22.11.1997 under the scheme floated by the respondent - M/s. Golden Forest (I) Limited. THE photocopy of the receipt regarding the investment has been filed as Annexure C-1. THE maturity value has been shown as Rs. 10,000/- as against the amount invested being Rs. 5,000/-. THE said amount matured for payment on 22.5.2001. THE investment was made on 22.11.1997. THE complainant filed an application seeking payment of the maturity value under the scheme of deposit to the respondent vide letter photocopy Annexure C-2, sent under registered post (Copy Annexure C-3) but there was no response from the respondent which led to the filing of the complaint case. THE complainant besides seeking the payment of the maturity value with interest @ 18% per annum sought Rs. 20,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony, and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. THE respondent did not file reply to the complaint case and the complaint case was proceeded ex parte vide zimini order dated 20.8.2002. THE complaint case was fixed for ex parte evidence on 30.9.2002 on which date it was adjourned to 24.10.2002 as the final opportunity. On 24.10.2002, none appeared for the complainant. None also appeared for the O.P. THE District Forum proceeded to decide the complaint case on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and as mentioned above dismissed the complaint. Subsequently an application was moved for restoration of the case on 28.10.2002 on the ground that the learned Counsel for the complainant was busy in attending cases before the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and he could reach the District Forum around 1.10 p.m. but the District Forum had been adjourned for the day. He also learnt from enquiring from the Reader that the complaint case has been dismissed in default.

The learned Counsel for the complainant stated that he had the affidavit of the complainant ready with him to be filed on 24.10.2002 but could not do so as the complaint had already been dismissed. Apart from this, Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate contended before us that though the complainant had filed the documents referred to above regarding the investment of the amount in the scheme floated by the respondent which showed clearly that the investment of amount of Rs. 5,000/- had matured for payment. There was an averment made in the complaint regarding the non-payment of the amount of maturity. There was no reply filed by the respondent though they put in appearance before the District Forum and filed power of attorney of Mr. G.S. Rangi, Advocate and Ms. Pooja Atri, Advocate which is dated 11.6.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide better protection to the interest of the consumers, the District Forum ought to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to the appellant/complainant to lead her evidence including her affidavit and as contended by Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate, he visited the District Forum on 24.10.2002 itself in the later part of the day but the case had been dismissed in default. He also tried to contact the learned Presiding Officer of the District Forum, as mentioned in para 3 of his affidavit dated 6.11.2002 but the learned Presiding Officer declined to meet the complainant on the ground that the orders have already been passed.

IN our considered opinion, the appeal has considerable merit and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the complaint case is remanded to the District Forum for being decided on merit after allowing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to lead her evidence including the affidavit and such documents, if any, which the appellant/complainant wants to file and also allow opportunity to the respondent who has already put in appearance before the District Forum and even in this appeal to make submissions on her behalf in the case and then decide the case according to law and in the light of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 712=2002 CTJ 757 (SC). The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 20.3.2003. Appeal allowed.