GOLDEN FORESTS INDIA LIMITED Vs. VIPAN CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 28.9.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Brief facts taken from the complaint are that the opposite party had issued a Cheque No. CA/22/0344194 dated 21.7.2000 of State Bank of Patiala, Panchkula for Rs.10,000/- in favour of the complainant. He had deposited the cheque in his Saving Bank Account No.8805 with Syndicate Bank, Railway Road, near Clock Tower, Hoshiarpur, for collection. The cheque was got bounced with the remarks that there was "insufficient Funds" in the account of the opposite party. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was entitled to receive back an amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest from the opposite party and was also liable to receive damages on account of agony and mental harassment caused to him.

(3.) On notice being given to the opposite parties, none appeared for opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.1 filed his written statement, which was received in the District Forum by post. The plea was taken in the written statement that a writ petition filed by SEBI was pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay; the Hon'ble Division Bench had passed orders from time to time, which were to be complied with by the opposite party. Opposite party was in turmoil due to the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI ). Taking advantage of this chaotic situation large number of investors had approached different Consumer Forums. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pandse for the sale of properties of the opposite party. It was then stated in the reply that keeping in view the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and its final order dated 16.2.2000, the investors had to forward their claims to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pandse, who was appointed as Receiver. It was then averred in the reply that similar situation had arisen in respect of investors who had filed their claims before the various Consumer Forums. An order was passed by the Hon'ble National Commission on 7.1.1997 clarifying the position in view of the intervention of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in such cases. In these circumstances, the opposite party was to make payment on the recommendations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pandse (Receiver) to the genuine and bonafide depositors and thus there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum allowed the complaint after passing the following order : "we have heard the complainant in person. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is of the deposit which was made by the complainant, though he has not made this clear in the complaint. It also appears as post-dated cheque was issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant, when the deposit was made by him. Later-on, when post-dated cheque was deposited by him with his banker the same was got bounced because of the present situation which is being faced by the opposite party. The opposite party has attached with the written reply orders dated 16.2.2000 and order dated 23.11.1998 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. We have perused these orders which do not bar investors of the opposite party to lodge complaints with the Forums. Further, Receiver has been appointed for the sale of the properties of the opposite party and the sale proceeds are to be deposited with the SEBI. There is no scheme framed uptill now by the Hon'ble High Court as to how the investors/consumers are to be paid. So far as the allegations of the complainant are concerned, the same find support from the affidavit filed by him. The opposite party having not made payment to the complainant after the date of maturity and as post-dated cheque having been got bounced, deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is proved. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is ordered to make payment of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date when the complainant had become entitled to receive this amount and also cost of Rs.500/-. Of-course, this order will be subject to any order which may be passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court with regard to the mode of payment to the complainant. "