Liability for deposit and payment of maturity value under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President— This is an appeal against the order dated 3.4.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 68 of 1998. By the impugned order the complaint has been allowed with costs of Rs. 250/- and with a direction to the opposite party to pay the maturity value of the deposit, i.e. Rs. 18,216/- alongwith interest on this amount @ 12% per annum from 14.7.1997 till payment. The complaint was filed by Mrs. Veena Sharma before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh against Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd., Regd. Office 312, Anna Salal, Madras and M/s. Bajaj Capital and Investment Centre Ltd., SCO No. 89/90/91, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The deposit was made through the agency of the appellantM/s. Bajaj Capital and Investment Centre Ltd. The appellant was acting as an agent for and on behalf of respondent No. 2 Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd. It is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 12,000/- was duly deposited with Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd. which had issued receipt of the deposit of the said amount to the respondent No. 1/complainant Mrs. Veena Sharma. The photocopy of the receipt has been placed on the record of the complaint case as Annexure C-1. The date of deposit has been shown as 14.7.1994. The sum so deposited has been shown as Rs. 12,000/-. The period of deposit has been shown as 36 months. The date of maturity has been shown as 14.7.1997 and the maturity value has been shown as Rs. 18,216/-. This receipt is dated 5.8.1994. The respondent/ complainant Mrs. Veena Sharma was not paid the maturity value by Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd.-Respondent No. 2 despite the production of cumulative deposit receipt (Annexure C-l) dated 5.8.1994. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Company aforesaid, the complaint was filed before the District Forum and the appellant was also impleaded as opposite party No. 2 besides Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd. who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1. Upon issuance of notice, the appellant M/s. Bajaj Capital and Investment Centre Ltd., only put in appearance and filed a short reply. The opposite party No. 1 Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd. did not put in appearance before the District Forum and was proceeded against ex-parte. According to the reply filed by the appellant, the complainant had not claimed any relief and compensation against the respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had been wrongly impleaded and the complaint was bad for its mis-joinder. On behalf of the complainant, evidence was led which was in the shape of affidavit of the complainant Mrs. Veena Sharma herself. The District Forum granted relief to the complainant by allowing the same and ordered for the refund of the amount of maturity value with interest and costs. The District Forum, however, directed that both the opposite parties, i.e. Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd. as well as M/s. Bajaj Capital and Investment Centre Ltd. were liable to pay the amount of Rs. 18,216/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 14.7.1997 till payment and also allowed costs against them of a sum of Rs. 250/-.

2. The opposite party No. 2 M/s. Bajaj Capital and Investment Centre Ltd., Chandigarh felt aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum and has filed this appeal.

3. Upon the issuance of the notice in this appeal, only the complainant/respondent Mrs. Veena Sharma put in appearance. The respondent No. 2-Mc Dowell Krest Finance Ltd., Madras did not put in appearance before this Commission as well despite service of notice.

4. On the data of hearing of this appeal, i.e. 6.10.2000, the complainant/respondent Mrs. Veena Sharma did not put in appearance despite the fact that the date of 6.10.2000 had been fixed in her presence on 1.9.2000. We have heard the learned Counsel