Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President; Dr. P.K. Vasudeva &
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
KUNDAN LAL SHARMA—Appellant
versus
COL. H.S. BOPARAE & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 136 of 2001—Decided on 27.8.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. P.L. Sanghi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. V.P. Chatrath, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: None.
Liability of a regional manager who is also a shareholder in a company for the refund of money deposited by a consumer.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Liability of Regional Manager - Section 12 - The court discussed the liability of the regional manager, who was also a shareholder of the company, in a case involving a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The court found that the regional manager was liable to pay the complainant partly or jointly the sum of Rs. 15,000 along with the interest amount of Rs. 4,350 for which post-dated cheques were issued. The court also affirmed the District Forum's decision holding the company liable for deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 in a fixed deposit scheme with Aneja Consultancy. Post-dated cheques issued by the consultancy to discharge their liability bounced, leading to the complaint alleging deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the regional manager liable to pay the complainant and affirmed the District Forum's decision holding the company liable for deficiency in service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the regional manager was also liable for the refund of the money deposited by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regional manager, who was also a shareholder of the company, was liable to pay the complainant partly or jointly the sum of Rs. 15,000 along with the interest amount of Rs. 4,350 for which post-dated cheques were issued. The court also affirmed the District Forum's decision holding the company liable for deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the appeal.
Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member—This appeal has been filed against order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No. 555 of 1999, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma, House No. 3225, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh v. Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.), Regional Manager of Aneja Group/Consultancy, residence : H. No. 148, Sector-2, Panchkula (Previous Office Address : SCO 52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh) and Inderjit Aneja, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Aneja Group/Consultancy, previous address : SCO 52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, residence address : Inderjit Aneja s/o Bagmal Aneja, Plot No. 10-A, Road No. 8, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (A.P.).
2. The District Forum-I has allowed the complaint and found the opposite party No. 2 deficient in service and the opposite party No. 2 has been directed to make payment to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) has been directed to make all efforts to get the refund. However, no personal liability has been fastened on opposite party No. 1.
3. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum-I, the appellant/complainant, Mr. Kundan Lal Sharma filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying that respondent No. 1, who was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum-I be held liable to make the payment to the appellant/complainant.
4. The appellant/complainant, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma had filed complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act before the District Forum-I making averments, inter alia, as under :
5. The complainant, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in a fixed deposit scheme floated by Aneja Consultancy having its office at SCO No. 52, Sector-20, Chandigarh vide receipt No. 956 dated 29.11.1996 issued by the Aneja Consultancy. The photocopy of the receipt is placed on record with the complaint case. The respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy issued post-dated cheques of Rs. 15,000/- being principal amount and interest amount of Rs. 4,350/- in order to discharge their ensuing liability of matured value of the deposits. These cheques were issued through respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.), Regional Manager of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy. On presenting these cheques to the bankers after the matured date, the same were bounced, hence the complainant, Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma filed a complaint in the District Forum-I alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had prayed in his original complaint that the opposite parties are liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- and interest amount of Rs. 4,350/- for which post-dated cheques were issued by the opposite party No. 2.
6. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 has filed reply to the complaint case while opposite party No. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum-I. The opposite party No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) contended in his written statement that he was only an employee of the opposite party No. 2, Aneja Consultancy so no personal liability can be fastened on him. The liability to refund the amount lies only with the opposite party No. 2, with whom the appellant/complainant deposited the sum of Rs. 15,000/-.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. P.L. Sanghi, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. V.P. Chatrath, Advocate. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. We have also gone through the entire record of the complaint case and documents adduced therein with utmost care and circumpection.
8. The only point that this Commission is required to settle in the appeal is to find out if respondent No. 1, Col. H.S. Boparae (Retd.) is also liable for the refund of the money deposited by the appellant. The learned Cou
