Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President), Pinki, Member (Judicial)
I.B.C. Banking Network – Appellant
versus
Ram Phool Sharma – Respondent
First Appeal No.336 of 2017
Decided on 6.1.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. S.P. Pal, Counsel along with Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Director
For the Respondent:Mr. Vinod Kumar Jha, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Liability for non-refund of deposits – A financial institution or entity cannot escape liability for non-refund of deposits by merely denying the transaction or the relationship in its pleadings. When the Complainant produces documentary evidence such as application forms and receipts bearing the entity’s seal, the burden shifts to the entity to prove such documents are forged. Mere denial without supporting evidence is not sustainable in law.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal against District Commission Order – Deficiency in Service – Fixed Deposit Scheme – Failure to Refund on Maturity – Evidentiary Value of Documents vs. Mere Denial – Deposit of money under a fixed deposit scheme creates a consumer-service provider relationship – Failure to return the principal amount upon maturity constitutes a clear deficiency in service – A simple denial is insufficient to dislodge the well-reasoned findings of the District Commission – State Commission dismissed the appeal – District Commission’s order upheld – Appeal is devoid of merit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

By this judgment, we shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 03.05.2017, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (District North-West), C-Block Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), in Complaint Case No.CC-58/2010 titled ‘Ram Phool Sharma vs. M/s IBC Banking Network’, inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission.

3. The facts of the case as per the District Commission, record are as under:—

“1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant, on the inducement and assurances of good returns of the OP deposited an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- in plan no.FD-50 which is fixed deposit plan for 3 months with the OP vide account no.AD-1011115 and the OP issued a fixed deposit certificate. But the OP did not release the amount to the complainant on the maturity of the fixed deposit on 14.12.2009. Under the provisions of SEBI Act, 1992, the OP was directed by SEBI to close their all schemes and to return all the amounts collected. But despite that OP did not return the amount to the complainant and as such there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.”

4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 03.05.2017, whereby it held as follows:—

“9. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The complainant has placed on record copy of Investment Plan Application Form-2 bearing name of complainant, his address, father’s name, his mobile number, agent details, account number, date of investment, plan number, amount of deposit as Rs.39,000/-, total amount as Rs.1,95,000/- as well as seal impression of OP containing the name of OP. The complainant has also placed on record copy of FIR No.439/2009, P.S. Mangol Puri, copy of final report u/s 173 CrPC filed against the OP, From the documents placed on record, OP cannot contend that Sh. Rakesh Mishra is not a director of the company and the company has not received the amount of Rs.39,000/- from the complainant on 15.09.2009. Thus we are of opinion that the OP have received an amount of Rs.39,000/- from the complainant in the form of fixed deposit of 3 months which the OP have failed to return to the complainant on the maturity of the fixed deposit. Thus OPs are held guilty of deficiency in service.

10. Thus holding guilty for the same, we direct the OPs to—

i) refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.39,000/- being the amount deposited.

ii) to Pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered

iii) to pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

11. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has filed the present appeal, contending that the District Commission has erred in holding it guilty of deficiency in service, as there was no service provider-consumer relationship between the parties, and no evidence on record to establish such a relationship. It is further submitted that the respondent allegedly misled the District Commission by relying on an FIR against the appellant, even though arrest does not amount to conviction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document