The Consumer Forum has jurisdiction over disputes involving non-repayment of deposits by Non-Banking Financial Companies, and the scheme framed by the Company Law Board is not binding on all depositors unless they have participated in the proceedings before the Board.

Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President—Considering the huge pendency of cases in Consumer Forums against Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) by the depositors all over the country, it is an unfortunate story of loot by NBFCs and then these very NBFCs taking shelter in the safe heaven of schemes framed by the Company Law Board in any of the regions of the country much to the chagrin of the poor depositors.

2. These revisions by the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company has the usual defence of scheme framed by Company Law Board, Western Region when most of the depositors had no notice of hearing before the Company Law Board. That reflects the unjustness of the case for a depositor living in far corner of the country and when he is in a dark even to enforce the payment under the scheme. For one he is a depositor who was not a party to the proceedings before the Company Law Board and is not aware of the order and then for breach of the scheme he has to approach the Reserve Bank of India to take cognizance of the offence committed by the NBFC and then the usual endless proceedings before a Criminal Court as he has no control over the criminal proceedings, if any, instituted by the RBI. It was submitted before us that the scheme framed by the petitioner covered all the depositors and for non-compliance of the scheme about 8,000 complaints were made to the RBI but not a single complaint had been filed against the petitioner in the Criminal Court.

3. A question of utmost importance has been raised in these revisions and that is the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum vis-a-vis that of the Company Law Board, latter exercising jurisdiction under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 though constituted under Section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956.

4. In this batch of 11 revisions there are respondent-complainants who had made deposits with the petitioner, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) which deposits were not repaid to the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the deposits. These depositor-complainants filed complaints before the different District Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Consumer Act). Complaints were allowed by the District Forums and the appeals filed by the petitioner-NBFC were dismissed by the respective State Commissions. Now these petitions under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. It is contended before us by the petitioner that it being NBFC, functions under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI for short) within the purview of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Petitioner, it is stated, had received deposits from various depositors from all over the country to the tune of over Rs. 350.00 crores. Petitioner has its registered office at Mumbai and branches at various places in the country from where deposits were taken from the depositors. It is contended that a scheme was framed on 16.4.99 by Company Law Board (western branch) which was subsequently modified on 22.12.2000. That scheme was in the interest of the depositors including the respondent-complainants herein. Complaints in the present case were filed in between the period from 1999 to 2001 before different Consumer Forums. It is not contended that District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaints filed before them. Strong reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a order dated 9.11.00 rendered earlier by this Commission in the case of M/s. Allianz Capital & Management Services Ltd. v. B.P. Grover & Ors., I (2001) CPJ 41 (NC), where this Commission took the following view:

“The Company Law Board is now seized of the matter in dispute. It has been stated on behalf of the Company that the petitioner-Company is adhering to the scheme of payment framed by the Company Law Board. Since the Company Law Board is seized of the matter, we will not hear the case any further. The matter is disposed of finally as above. Any grievance about