IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate evidence on record when findings of lower Fora are concurrent on facts.

ORDER

This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 13.04.2015 in First Appeal No. A/10/195 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal and upholding order dated 24.06.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 175 of 2004.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that he was an Independent Director in Suman Motels Ltd. The respondent had deposited Rs 1,00,000/- with M/s Suman Resorts (India) Ltd in response to a scheme of “Holiday Bonds” which had offered interest @18% p.a. with effect from 27.06.2004 and dividend thereon. It is submitted that Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. went into liquidation in 2003 and an Official Liquidator was appointed on 28.03.2009. Respondent no. 1/complainant had filed Complaint No. 175/2004 under section 12 of the Act for recovery of money against Suman Motels Ltd. and Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. The District Forum passed ex parte orders against the revision petitioner directing repayment with interest and cost. As this order was followed by a warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner, he deposited the decreed amount with the District Forum even though he had not been a party to the proceedings before the District Forum. His plea not to release the amount till disposal of the matter was not adjudicated and the money released to the respondent/complainant. The revision petitioner states that his appeal A/10/195 before the State Commission was declared infructuous. It is contended that Suman Motels Ltd. and Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. are independent entities and the State Commission erred in concluding that Suman Motels Ltd. was a subsidiary of Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. It is averred that the proceedings were erroneously dismissed on the ground of limitation by the State Commission.

3. The petitioner’s case is that the lower fora erred in fastening liability of a company under liquidation (Suman Resorts (India) Ltd.) on to another company Suman Motels Ltd. and concurrently fastened on a person who is an Independent Director of this Company.

4. The District Forum’s order held as under:

In this petition the complainant has filed receipt issued by Suman Motels Ltd. as well as filed Smart Card. It is issued by Suman Motels Ltd. on dated 29.06.2002 is at Exh. 3/1 part I and also filed membership card issued by Suman Motels on 29.06.2002 and is recorded at Exh. 3/9 part 1. On perusal of both these documents, it makes very clear to us, the respondent no. 1 & 2 have received Rs 1,00,000/- from the complainant and after receipt of this amount the respondent has issued membership card bearing No. SRI/HB/0199/6387. As per this card the complainant was entitled for Rs 22,000 as Suman Cash Vouchers for every year, free stay vouchers for 7 family members along with 2 rooms for every year up to 5 years and non-profit vouchers up to 5 years. As per the contents made by the complainant at Exh. 6 part 1 i.e. his affidavit he has not provided any facility from the respondent as well as dividend as agreed therefore he has requested the respondent for refund of the amount deposited after completion of 2 years by telephone as well as in writing. He has also issued a legal notice on 19/10/2004 and also on 8/11/2004 but no response from the side of the respondent. These legal notices as well as acknowledge-ment receipts are on record. Considering these facts, evidence led by the complainant as well as documents on record we hold that the respondent No. 1 & 2 are responsible for deficiency in service. Therefore, we are in the opinion that the complainant is entitled for getting an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the respondent No. 1 & 2 as well as Rs 1,000/- towards cost of the litigation. Therefore, we