DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. HINDOLA DUTTA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the C. O.No. 3526 of 2005 and C. O. No.3527 of 2005 both involved with the same question of law, both the matters are taken up for analogous hearing.

(2.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 5th August, 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas whereby and whereunder a direction was given to make all payments namely, the deposit of the complainants along with interest with further payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment. From the fact of the case it appears that the opposite party No. 1 moved before the said Consumer Forum alleging, inter alia, that despite several representations the company namely, M/s. Duncans Industries Limited did not refund their deposits along with the interest accrued. This application was resisted as filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act read with Section 13 thereof by the present petitioner, who was opposite party No.1 contending inter alia, that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction, that already the Company Law Board decided the issue and with reference to such the High Court has already framed a scheme for payment of the depositors and that all the relevant documents and papers were not placed for release of deposited amount. The Consumer Forum decided all the points against the present petitioner. In this application, the petitioner has mainly thrashed the point that the decision of the Company Law Board with reference to the application filed by the other depositors and subsequently framely of a scheme framed by the Calcutta High Court directing the payment of the depositors in the manner as stated thereto, the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to interfere with that as virtually by the impugned order the scheme of the Calcutta High Court has been disturbed. It has been further contended that as per the scheme the petitioner, the opposite party No.1, entitled to have refund. However, the learned Advocate for the opposite parties submits that no amount has been paid when the opposite parties approached to release the same in terms of the scheme and furthermore as they are not the parties in those proceedings, naturally, that orders shall not be binding upon him. It has been -further contented by the opposite party, the applicant before the Consumer Forum that there is a provision of the appeal in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being Section 15 thereof and under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is a full-fledged Act dealing with the appeal provision also, the present petitioner without exhausting the appeal forum cannot file the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.