U.P.GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE CORPORATION vs JAYANTI PRASAD JAIN

THIS is an appeal filed by the Government Employees Welfare Corporation through its Executive Director, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hathras in Complaint Case No. 15/1998. The facts of the case stated in brief are as follows :

THE complainant Jayanti Prasad Jain attracted with the scheme of sales of scooter booked a scooter LML Star with the opposite party-U.P. Employees Welfare Corporation. On 30.5.1997 he deposited a sum of Rs. 25,708/- through a bankers cheque No. 3607971 dated 30.5.1997 with the opposite party No. 3 who was the Depot Incharge of the appellant at Hathras. On the same day he deposited an amount of Rs. 250/- as booking fee also. Inspite of his approaching the opposite party No. 3, the Depot Incharge and the opposite party No. 2, District Magistrate, Hathras, the complainant did not get the scooter for which he had paid the price and the booking money. It was further revealed by the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 28.7.1997 that a misappropriation of funds had taken place with the opposite party in the office of opposite party No. 3, Depot Incharge. THE Executive Director of the Corporation, opposite party No. 1, was also informed of the matter but the scooter was not delivered. Since the complainant was in need of a scooter and he did not get the scooter from the appellant inspite of depositing the requisite amount, he purchased another scooter from Aligarh. THE amount deposited by the complainant was not returned to him and he has been put to harassment by this financial loss. THE complainant is a retired Government employee. He has, therefore, lodged a claim with the District Consumer Forum claiming an amount of Rs. 25,988/- alongwith 24% per annum interest, and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation alongwith cost of complaint of Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party inspite of the service of notice did not put up any appearance before the District Forum and ex parte proceedings were initiated.

The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and ordered for refund of a sum of Rs. 25,708/- alongwith 18% per annum interest to be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties. A compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also allowed.

AGGRIEVED of this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. We have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent as it would have delayed the disposal of the case and had put the respondent to inconvenience whereas judgment would have been the same. We are, therefore, disposing of this appeal at the admission stage itself.

WE have gone through the memo of appeal and the contents of the copy of complaint filed before the learned District Forum. The appellant''s Counsel Mr. Sharad Tiwari has also been heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the complainant had deposited the amount with the Depot Incharge of the appellant for purchase of the scooter, but the scooter could not be delivered to the complainant because the Depot Incharge at Hathras was charged for embezzlement. An enquiry was conducted against the said Depot Incharge and his services were terminated and recovery of Rs. 63,000/- has been imposed on him. The amount deposited by the complainant also includes the embezzled amount. The learned Counsel further stated that the appellant is prepared to give the desired scooter and is even ready to pay the difference of price in case there has been any increase in the price of scooter. We find that the complainant has already purchased the scooter because he was in need of the same and he had to spend money for purchase of another scooter. He has, therefore, asked for the refund of the amount alongwith interest and compensation etc. We, therefore, find that there is no justification in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant may be given a scooter by the appellant and the difference in price if any will be borne by the appellant. The complainant is, therefore, right in taking back the money alongwith the interest due. The learned Counsel has further argued that the Depot Incharge who is the opposite party No. 3 has purposely not contested the case before the District Forum, a notice of which was served on him because he had embazzled the amount. The complainant is not at fault for the misdeed of the opposite party No. 3 who is the agent/manager of the Corporation and the Corporation is liable to refund the amount alongwith interest etc. as a consideration has already been there. Therefore, there has been a gross deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the order and judgment of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be issued to the parties. Appeal dismissed.