BHUSHAN THAPAR Vs. RENU CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral)All these five appeals having a common issue for determination are taken up together for hearing. The following issue can be framed for positive finding:

(2.) KM . Sonal Chaudhary and Smt. Renu Chaudhary invested with M/s. Maegabyte Leasing and Finance Company Limited a sum of Rs. 30,000 each and after the maturity period cheques for repayment in the names of these two complainants were issued by the company but they were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the company's bank account and this had driven the two complainants to file their Complaint Nos. 1061/2000 and 1063/2000 respectively. These two complaints were decided by the District Consumer Forum -I, Lucknow by means of a single judgment which has been challenged in the two appeal Nos. 3119/2006 and 3120/2006. It is noteworthy that M/s. Maegabyte Leasing and Finance Company Limited along with its directors including Sri Bhushan Thapar, the appellants were held liable to make the payment good.

(3.) THE position is slightly different in the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2008 passed by the two members in Complaint Case Nos. 817/ 99, 818/99 and 819/99. The two members namely Sri V.K.Gargand Smt. Veena Arora had exempted Sri Bhushan Thapar from any liability to make payment to the investors. Although the President of the District Consumer Forum -I, Lucknow vide his dissenting judgment pronounced on 5.7.2008 held Sri Bhushan Thapar liable along with the company to make the payment good, yet the majority judgment will prevail with its validity to be executed. By means of the majority judgment, Sri Bhushan Thapar has been absolved of all his liabilities. All the three complainants of the aforesaid complaints namely Sri Sohan Lal Tandon (Companint Case No. 817/99), Smt. Uma Tandon (Companint Case No. 818/99) and Smt. Sonali Tandon (Companint Case No. 819/99) have filed the other set of three appeal Nos. 1873/2008, 1875/2008 and 1873/2008 respectively challenging the majority judgment of the two members to the extent of Sri Bhushan Thapar being exempted from his liability for payment. It is significant to note that these two members held the finance company and one of its directors namely Sri Z.A. Khan to be as liable to make the payment good.