Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President & Mrs. Saroj Rajwade, Member
RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA—Appellant
versus
MAHARASHTRA SAVINGS & MAHARASHTRA
GROUP HOUSING FINANCE LTD.—Respondent
Appeal No. 220 of 1995—Decided on 20.10.1995
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate.
Failure to pay the amount due to a depositor under a scheme of deposit launched by a company amounts to deficiency in service, entitling the complainant to relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Savings Scheme - The court held that failure to pay amount due to a depositor under a scheme of deposit launched by a Company amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to relief under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of Barkatullah University, deposited a total sum of Rs. 15,500 in a savings scheme launched by the opponent. He became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 18,000 but did not receive any payment. Six cheques for Rs. 18,000 were delivered but were dishonoured.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The court found that the appellant was entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 18,000 from the opponent along with interest at 18% p.a.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to relief under the Consumer Protection Act for the failure to receive the amount due to him under the savings scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to pay the amount due to a depositor under a scheme of deposit launched by a company amounts to deficiency in service, entitling the complainant to relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the opponent was directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 18,000 along with interest at 18% p.a. and costs.
Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.2.95 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in Case No. 608/93.
2. The appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the appellant. Briefly his case was that he was an employee of the Barkatullah University, Bhopal, that in pursuance of a savings scheme launched by the opponent, he had opened 3 savings account and had deposited with the opponent a total sum of Rs. 15,500/- by monthly instalments in these three accounts. It was averred that under the said scheme the complainant had become entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the opponent in May, 1991 but he did not receive any payment. It was further averred that six cheques for Rs. 18,000/- towards the amount due to him were delivered by the opponent to the complainant in June, 1993 but these cheques were dishonoured and no payment was thus received by him. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint seeking relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. None appeared on behalf of the opponent despite service of notice. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that as the complainant had alleged that he was cheated by the opponent, the complainant was not entitled to any relief under the Act and that he should seek remedy in a Civil Court.
3. We have heard the appellant who appeared in person before us and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The record of the case was perused. In our opinion, the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to any relief under the Act. The District Forum failed to appreciate that for arriving at a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent to enable the complainant to seek relief under the Act, all that the complainant was required to establish was that he had deposited the sum as alleged by him with the opponent in pursuance of a savings scheme launched by the opponent, that he had become entitled to receive the amount due to him under that scheme and that the said amount had not been paid to him by the opponent. It is true that the complainant had averred that he was thus cheated by the opponent but this passing observation would not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the District Forum to grant relief on the ground that complicated questions of fraud and cheating were required to be determined and that these could not be determined in proceedings under the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent was unable to satisfy us that any such question was involved in the dispute raised by the complainant. It has been held by the National Commission in Neela Vasant Raje v. Amogh Industries & Anr. reported in III (1993) CPJ 261 (NC) that failure to pay amount due to a depositor under a scheme of deposit launched by a Company amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to relief under the Act. The order passed by the District Forum dismissing die complaint cannot be sustained in law.
4. On merits we find that the allegations of the complainant that he had opened 3 savings accounts under a scheme launched by the opponent, that he had deposited with the opponent a total sum of Rs. 15,500/-, that he had become entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the opponent, that six cheques for Rs. 18,000/- were delivered to the complainant by the opponent in June, 1993 towards the amount due to him and that these cheques were dishonoured are supported by an affidavit and documents filed in that behalf. These allegations have not been controverted by the opponent-respondent even before this Commission. Under the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the opponent along with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from 1st July, 1993 till the date of payment.
5. The appeal is, therefore allowed. The 1 order dated 24th February, 1995 passed by the District Forum is set-aside. The op
