Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President &
Col. P.K. Vasudeva, Member
S.M. FINANCE LIMITED—Appellant
versus
VEENA SAWANNI—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 29 of 1999—Decided on 6.5.1999
Consumer Protection - Deposit Dispute - The court upheld the order for the finance company to pay the deposit amount with interest to the depositor, emphasizing the entitlement of depositors to hearing and relief in consumer dispute forums and commissions.
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Veena Sawanni deposited Rs. 15,000 with M/s. S.M. Finance Limited for 12 months at 15% interest. The finance company failed to make the payment upon maturity, leading to a complaint and a subsequent order for payment by the District Forum-I.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did not appear in the forum, and the liability of the appellant was not contested. The court also noted that the respondent was not a party to the proceedings held at Chennai, where a scheme was formulated to refund the deposits by instalments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the finance company to make the payment upon maturity, the appellant's non-appearance in the forum, and the respondent's exclusion from the proceedings in Chennai.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent that depositors in various companies were entitled to hearing and relief in consumer dispute forums and commissions, emphasizing the entitlement of depositors to seek redressal in such forums.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order for the finance company to pay the deposit amount with interest to the depositor. Connected Appeal No. 28 of 1999 was also dismissed.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—Smt. Veena Sawanni deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with M/s. S.M. Finance Limited on 6.11.1996 for a period of 12 months and interest @ 15% p.a. was payable on maturity of the F.D.R. On 8.11.1997 it was submitted to the aforesaid Finance Company but no payment was made. On a complaint instituted by the depositor, the District Forum-I ordered on 7.10.1998 that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- together with interest @ 15% with costs Rs. 1,000/- shall be payable. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.
2. The appellant did not appear in the Forum despite statutory notice and the proceedings were ordered ex parte. In this case, the deposit made by the respondent and liability of the appellant has not been controverted. The plea raised is that some depositor had approached the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench at Chennai and a scheme was formulated to refund the deposits by instalments. On our enquiry, the learned Counsel for the appellant could not give any information as to whether any part of the deposit has been refunded to the respondent or not. The respondent was not a party to the proceedings held at Chennai. In Ravi Kant & Anr. v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Ors., I (1997) CPJ 271 (DB), it has been observed by Delhi High Court that the depositors in various Companies were entitled for hearing and relief in the FORA and the Commission. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.
3. Connected Appeal No. 28 of 1999 has rightly been opposed by Smt. Kamal Gupta, respondent and it also stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
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
