SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3071

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PRAKASH RANI GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
ANAND SARNA & ANR. – Respondent
SC/7/FA/689/2013



IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution : 11.06.2013 Date of Reserving the order : 05.12.2025 Date of Decision : 22.04.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.-689/2013 IN THE MATTER OF MRS. PRAKASH RANI GUPTA, W/O LATE MR. O.P. GUPTA, R/O E-151, GROUND FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH, PART-I, NEW DELHI-110048 …APPELLANT (Through: Mr. Vikas Deep &

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates)

VERSUS

1. MR. ANAND SARNA, EX-DIRECTOR OF M/S SHEENU CHITS PVT. LTD.

FLAT NO.G-1, PLOT NO.781, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD, (U.P)

……RESPONDENT NO.1 (Through: Mr. Sumit Sarna, Ms. Mamta Chandel, Ms. Priyanka Ranjan and Mr. Rovin Chaudhary, Advocates Mob.9650941688, 9213356300 Email: advocateandsolicitors@gmail.com)

2. M/S SHEENU CHITS PVT. LTD.

838, POCKET-I, JANTA FLAT, PASCHIMPURI, NEW DELHI-110063 ……RESPONDENT NO.2 (Through: Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocate Mob:9560706262)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present : Counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 20.04.2013, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, (West District), 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058 (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Complaint Case no. CC- 990/2003 titled as Smt. Prakash Rani Gutpa vs. Anand Sarna & Ors. inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.

2. While the Appellant was Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondents were Opposite Parties before the District Forum.

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

“The brief background of this complaint is that a consumer complaint was originally filed by complainant on 5.1.04 against Shri Anand Sarna, an Ex-Director of M/s. Sheenu Chits Pvt. Ltd. The complaint was contested on merits on several grounds and finally it was dismissed by my learned predecessor's orders dated 30.08.04. This order was challenged in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission complaint was remanded back to the forum by the orders of Hon'ble Justice J.D. Kapoor (as he then was President of State Commission) dated 3.8.07. The order was challenged by the respondent herein before the National Commission and vide National Commission's Order dated 18.12.07 respondent herein was granted an opportunity to move an application before the District Forum for impleading Sheenu Chits Pvt. Ltd. and its other Directors as co-respondents. In this background respondent Shri Anand Sarna moved an application for impleading Sheenu Chits Private Ltd. and Smt. Vidyawati, one of its Directors as co-respondents. The application was allowed and they were impleaded as co-respondents in the proceedings.

Case of the complainant is that she became one of the member of the chit floated by respondent in March, 2002. The respondent had been issuing receipts stating therein Chit No.S-18 and on some of the receipts it shown as Chit No.17. The chit was for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.6,000/- in first chit and thereafter Rs.4,500/- in chit no.2 and paid 15 instalments. She was being issued receipts over months but now alleges that the receipts issued to her were fabricated and the respondent no.1 misappropriated the amount for his own use and did not deposit this amount in the chit fund company account. In total she paid Rs.72,450/- to the respondent. The complainant came to know that respondent was also running some chit previously in the name of Katyani and Yogmaya and in which also he misappropriated huge amount and number of cases were pending against him. She came to know about this fact in September 03 and did not make further payment to the respondent. She requested him number of times to pay her amount with interest but he postponed it on one pretext or the other hence he approached this forum with the request that respondent be directe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top