PUNJAB WIRELESS SYSTEMS LTD. vs BEENA BHASIN

SINCE the above mentioned appeals, which arise out of common order, dated 17.11.1999, passed by the District Forum No. III, in Complaint Case No. 1459/1999 and other connected 22 matters, entitled Smt. Beena Bhasin & Ors. v. M/s. Punjab Wireless Systems Ltd. & Ors., and subsequent order dated 7.4.2000, passed by the District Forum between the same parties, have common facts and raise common questions for consideration, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeals lie in a narrow compass. THE respondents in the above mentioned appeals had filed separate complaints against the appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') averring that they had invested amounts in the Fixed Deposit Scheme, floated by the appellant. THE amounts/deposits so made by the respondents with the appellant, were to carry interest at the agreed rate and were payable after the date of maturity. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount of deposits, together with agreed rate of interest, despite repeated requests/reminders, the respondents, named above, filed separate complaints against the appellant before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, with the prayer that the appellant be directed to refund the amount of deposits together with interest and cost. The claim of the respondents before the District Forum was contested by the appellant, who filed written version taking certain preliminary objections also.

The learned District Forum, vide orders dated 17.11.1999, being impugned in the present proceedings, has rejected the pleas/contentions raised by the appellant, allowed the complaints and has directed the appellant to refund to the respondents the amount in question, alongwith interest and costs. The abovesaid order dated 17.11.1999 was an ex parte order. The appellant, on coming to know of the abovesaid order, filed an application for setting aside the abovesaid ex parte order dated 17.11.1999. The abovesaid application, filed by the appellant, for setting aside the ex parte order, has been rejected by the learned District Forum, vide order dated 7.4.2000. The operative portion of the abovesaid order reads as under : "The opposite party has presented application for setting aside an ex parte order. As held by Hon''ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 22.1.1999 in Civil Appeal Nos. 314-315/1999, Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust, there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act to enable the Forum to set aside an ex parte order passed by it. The application is, therefore, rejected."

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the above mentioned appeals. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the above mentioned appeals and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondents in the present appeals are not ''consumers'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; that the appellant was not providing any ''service'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act; that the District Forum No. III had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the respondents and that the Company Law Board was already seized of the matter. As a matter of fact, all the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant, stand fully covered by recent decisions of this Commission, in Appeal No. A-916/1998, entitled M/s. D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. v. Shri Bal Kishan Gupta & Ors., decided on 9.12.1999; Appeal No. 1091/1999, entitled M/s. World Link Finance Ltd. v. Shri M.R. Dixit & Ors., decided on 21.1.2000; and Appeal No. A-1085/1998, I (2000) CPJ 213, entitled Modern Threads (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Col. B.K. Sharma & Ors. For reasons already recorded in detail in the abovesaid appeals, the present appeals, filed by the appellant are also dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.

THE appeals mentioned above stand disposed of in the above terms. Appeals dismissed.