LACHMAN DASS OM PARKASH Vs. KULDEEP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through medium of instant petition seeks quashment of order dated 19th March, 2010 passed by J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint No. 2964/2008 titled "Kuldeep Sharma v. M/s Lachman Dass Om Parkash" whereby the Commission has recalled its order dated 23rd December, 2009, directing summoning of the witnesses at the instance of the present petitioner-respondent before the Commission. The Commission's order dated 19th March, 2010 according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The respondent in his reply to the writ petition has defended the Commission's order dated 19th March, 2010 on the ground that the procedure to be followed by the Commission being summary in nature, the Commission was well within its rights to ensure that the complaint filed by the respondent did not get delayed without any lawful justification.

(2.) I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The record available on the file reveals that the petitioner firm is engaged in Finance business and is duly registered with the Reserve Bank of India. The firm is stated to accept the deposits from its customers/depositors on the promise of returning the deposits so made with interest at the attractive rates, after a short interval. The respondent claims to have deposited an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- on his behalf and on behalf of 57 other depositors with the petitioner's firm. The respondent approached the Commission with the complaint that the petitioner firm had failed to return the deposited amount with interest as promised and, thus, there was deficiency in service, giving the respondent and other depositors a cause to approach the Commission. The complaint was contested by the petitioner firm inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had no locus standi to file a complaint on behalf of 57 other depositors. The petitioner insisted that the respondent had neither any role in making the deposits on behalf of other depositors nor could assume any kind of representative character to maintain a complaint on behalf of other depositors.