IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution : 19.06.2017 Date of Reserving the order : 17.11.2025 Date of Decision : 06.01.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.-336/2017 IN THE MATTER OF M/S I.B.C. BANKING NETWORK THROUGH DIRECTOR, MR. RAKESH MISHRA S/O MR. JAISH RAM MISHRA R/O J-222, MANGOLPURI, DELHI-110083 …APPELLANT (Through: Mr. S.P. Pal, Advocate Mob: 9810369878 &

Email: advocateappalegmail.com)

VERSUS MR. RAM PHOOL SHARMA S/O MR. DHUP CHAND, R/O-F-18/25, SECTOR-15, ROHINI, DELHI-110085 ……RESPONDENT (Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar Jha, Advocate Mob: 9810068572)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present : Mr. S.P. Pal, counsel along with Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Director of appellant.

None for the respondent.

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. 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 whic