Sherry Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs Kamini Saigal

BEING aggrieved by order dated 16.5.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ''State Commission ''), Petitioners/O.Ps have filed the present petition.

BRIEF facts are that Respondent No.1/Complainant No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/ with petitioner no.1 and it issued FDR No.0074 dated 30.09.1995 which was due for payment on 29.09.1997. It is also stated that Respondent No.2/Complainant no.2 deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/ and petitioners issued 2 FDRs of Rs. 25,000/ each dated 13.05.1995 bearing Nos.SLPL 047 and SLPL 075 dated 30.09.1995, payable on 12.5.1997 and 29.09.1997 respectively. Likewise, Respondent no.3/Complainant No.3 deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/ with the petitioner who issued FDR No.SLPL 044 dated 08.05.1995 payable on 07.05.1997. All the aforesaid FDRs bear interest @ 14% P.A. When all the FDRs became matured for payment in the year 1997,petitioners failed to pay on demand principal and interest there upon. Hence, respondents served legal notice dated 22.12.1998 upon the petitioners and prayed for the direction to the petitioners for making the payment of principal amount with interest @ 14% P.A. Besides this, they have claimed Rs.One lac as compensation and Rs.11,000/ on account of counsel fee. Petitioners did not appear before the District Forum inspite of service. Hence, they were proceeded exparte.

CONSUMER Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi(for short, ''District Forum ''), vide order dated 4.5.2001, allowed the complaint and passed the following directions; "In the result we direct the OP as under: 1. To pay the complainant No.1 the balance amount FDR No.0074 Dt.30.09.95 after adjusting the amount of Rs.10,000/ already paid by the OP to complainant No.1 with interest @ 14% P.A. from 01.01.97 to 12.05.97 and future interest thereafter,@ 12% P.A. 2. To pay the complainant No.2 a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards her FDR No.047 dated 13.05.1995 alongwith interest @ 14% P.A. from 01.01.1997 to 12.05.97 and thereafter interest @ 12% P.A. till realization. And pay Rs.25,000/ towards FDR No. 075 Dt.30.09.95 with interest @ 14% P. A. from 01.01.97 to 29.and, thereafter, interest @ 12% P.A. till realization. 3. To pay the complainant No.3 a sum of Rs. 25,000/ towards his FDR No.044 Dt.08.05.95 with interest from 01.01.97 @ 14% P. A. till 07.05.97 and, thereafter, interest @ 12%. 4. We direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to each of the complainant towards cos. The respondent shall comply with the above mentioned order within 45 days of receipt of this order failing which proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act may be initiated ".

THEREAFTER , District Forum in the execution proceedings, as per its order dated 24.08.2007 held that, in the execution proceedings it cannot review, alter or change its own order and directed petitioner no. 2 to pay the balance amount positively. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission challenging orders dated 04.05.2001 and 24.08.2007 of the District Forum.

STATE Commission, vide order dated 16.5.2008 disposed of the appeal in the following terms; "6. In view of the above reasons, there is no ground to interfere with the order dated 24 08 2007 nor is there any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The appellant, therefore, shall make the payment to the respondent with interest accruing from the order dated 4 1 2005 as the respondent is in a very poor financial state and is in dire need of money and her son is stated to have gone into depression after her husband ''s death and is incurring huge expenses for treatment and is also facing other problems due to the financial crunch. 7. In view of the equal liability of the appellant being Rs.30,000/ towards the principal amount, the appellant shall pay within fifteen days the interest and the amount of Rs.30,000/ in terms of order dated 4 1 2005 failing which the District Forum shall take up proceedings under Sec. 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 8. All of the complaints have become redundant in view of the order dated 4 5 2001 passed by the District Forum. The appellant cannot be allowed to reopen the issue after the matter has been decided on merits ".

BEING aggrieved by the order of State Commission, petitioners have filed the present revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent who has argued its case in person.

PETITIONERS herein were exparte before the District Forum as they did not appear despite service. Under these circumstances, petitioners have no defence on merits.

DISTRICT Forum, in its order has held; "The complainants have established on record that they have deposited the amounts to the OP as per their respective FDRs and OP has failed to pay the said amount of FDR on its maturity as demanded by the complainants, hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP ".

Statecommission while deciding the appeal observed; "4. It is pertinent to mention that in our Order dated 14 03 2005 passed in A 845/2002 Sunita Mehta v. Kamini Sehgal, who is respondent in this case, the present appellant Sunita Mehta was allowed in view of the undertaking given by her that she would settle the accounts with other four Directors who are equally liable to make payment of their share in the company to the respondent. In view of this undertaking, this Commission passed the following directions: " In view of this undertaking the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The District Forum shall take up the proceedings initially under Sec. 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, District Forum shall also consider the request of the appellant as to her proportionate liability being one of the Directors as the company comprises of four Directors ".

On the face of it the appeal against original order dated 04 05 2001 is hopelessly time barred. The appellant has come up after years to challenge this order without showing any sufficient grounds to condone such inordinate delay. Moreover, the appellant has also been given the relief as to her liability for the other directors of the company by the aforesaid order dated 14 03 2005. On account of this the appeal against order dated 12 05 2001 has become otherwise infructuous as in the aforesaid appeal No. 845/02 decided on 14 03 2005 the appellant had filed the above referred appeal for non compliance of order dated 4 5 2001 which impliedly meant that the appellant had already accepted the said order and was successful in obtaining relief as to her proportionate liability ".

UNDER section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short, ''Act ''),this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

AS there has been no defence on behalf of the petitioners before the District Forum on merits, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the State Commission as well as that of the District Forum. Under these circumstances, present revision petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.