Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Seth, President &
Mr. Duni Chand Sharma, Member
UNA GRAHAK SURAKSHA SAMITI—Appellant
versus
JANAPRIYA FINANCE & INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT (I) LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 23 of 1993—Decided on 30.9.1996
Held: In our opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the legal position there could be no escape from the conclusion that while the management of the opposite party /Company namely M/s. Janapriya Finance and Industrial Investment Ltd., amply fulfilled the character of being a provider of service within the meaning of clause (o) of sub-section (I) of Section 2, each of the individual depositors represented by the complainant/Voluntary Organization too fulfilled the character of being a consumer within the meaning of clause (d) of the said definition-Section in the Act.
In our opinion since the primary subject matter of the Consumer Protection Act relates to goods and services, the substance of the above mentioned definition of the word consideration can be suitably applied to the cases arising for adjudication under the said Act. Of course while doing so, the approach to be adopted has to be subject to the purpose for which the Act has been enacted i.e. to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers.
According to the complainant/Voluntary Organization, representing the above mentioned depositors, it was upon the above mentioned promise held out by the opposite party /Company that the said depositors had entered into the relevant transactions and made the relevant deposits of money with the opposite party Company. In the circumstances, in our opinion, in view of the above mentioned meaning of the word consideration, as occurring in the definition of the term consumer, it was quite obvious that the relevant acts of the individual depositors, in making deposits of their money with the opposite party /Company, pursuant to the promise which had been held out to them on its behalf, did constitute a valid and lawful consideration in respect of the relevant transactions and were sufficient to clothe the said depositors with the character of being the consumers within the -:.meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act.
The impugned order dated 15-51993 passed by the Distt. Forum, Una in the present case, as also the impugned orders of the even date passed by the said Forum in the above mentioned cases, dismissing the original complaint cases on the ground of being not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are set aside. All the said original complaint cases are restored to their original Nos. before the said Distt. Forum. The Distt. Forum is directed to proceed with the trial of the said complaint cases and. to dispose of the same afresh according to the provisions of law. It is clarified that in case the Distt. Forum finds that the complainant/Voluntary Organization, namely, M/s. Una Grahak Suraksha Samiti, Una, is no longer willing to proceed with the trial of the said complaint cases on behalf of the consumers/ depositors represented by it, it may, in the interest of justice, issue notice of the proceedings to the consumers concerned in order to know their willingness in regard to the said matter and thereafter proceed to dispose of the complaint cases according to the provisions of law.
(Paras 13, 15 & 17)
Result: Case remanded.
Mr. Justice S.K. Seth, President—This order shall govern the disposal of Appeal Nos. 24 to 54,58 to 322 and 391 of 1993 also.
2. The relevant facts, giving rise to the present appeal, as also to the other appeals referred to above, are as follows :—M/s. Janapriya Finance & Industrial Investment (India) Limited, Calcutta was a Company Registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 vide certificate of Incorporation No. 31269 dated 16.12.77 granted in its favour by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, India. It had its registered office at 113, Park Street, Calcutta. It appeared that several years back the Company had launched a Scheme called the New Welfare Scheme through the net work of its offices and branches situated all over the country. In the said Scheme, the members of general public, interested in making deposits of money, were invited to become certificate holders of the Company by choosing any one of the serveral Savings Schemes offered to them. The certificate holders were required to deposit fixed amounts of money in periodical instalments over a term of number of years opted for by them and by way of return they were to become entitled to interest on such deposits at attractive rates. It was guaranteed to them by the Company that on maturity i.e. on expiry of the term the total amount deposited by them would be returned to them alongwith interest and other benefits.
3. At the time of launching of the Scheme, apart from interest, certain additional benefits to certificate holders had also been announced by the Company. It was given out that certificate holders would be receiving the following additional benefits — (1) Free Group Accidental Death Insurance Cover upto Rs. two lakhs; (2) Free Janata Personal Accident Cover of Rs. 15,000/- and (3) Free Gramin Accidental Insurance Cover of Rs. 6,000/-. It was claimed by the Company that. there were certain distinctive features as regards its functioning, like it had Fastest Growth Oriented Savings and Deposits Mobilisation Organisations with offices in important centres throughout the country and had prompt and personalised service to the certificate holders. It appeared that being lured by the provisions of the Scheme, like in other parts of the country, quite a large number of persons residing in the Una District of the State of Himachal Pradesh, belonging mostly to lower and middle income groups, opted for the same and became the certificate holders of the Company by registering themselves at its branch office at Una. Thereafter, as per the requirements of the particular Saving Scheme opted for by them, they, during the course of time, also completed the deposit of periodical instalments expected of by them. Finally, on the maturity of certificates held by them, they submitted the original certificates, receipts and discharge vouchers to the branch office of the Company at Una for the relevant amounts being returned to them together with interest and other benefits as envisaged in the scheme. However, despite their personal visits to the branch office, they did not receive any payment either from the Company or its said branch.
4. It was at the above mentioned stage that a Voluntary Organisation, M/s. Una Grahak Suraksha Samiti, came forward and took up the case of aggrieved depositors and approached the District Forum, Una to seek redressal of their grievances by filing individual complaints on their behalf under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was alleged in the said complaints that in the circumstances of the case the non-payment of amounts to which the complainants were entitled under the Scheme amounted to ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the Company and its branch office at Una. It was prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the relevant amounts to them together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity. It was also prayed that they be further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as damages for pain, suffering, men
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
