GOLDEN FORESTS INDIA LTD Vs. BALWANT SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking revision of the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in appeal against the order of the District Forum. By the impugned order State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of District Forum which had allowed the complaint of the respondent.

(2.) Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before District Forum complaining that he had deposited various amounts with the petitioner and that the petitioner had issued fixed deposit receipts. The impugned order contains details of the F.D.R. numbers, dates of maturity and maturity value of the FDRs. Complaint was that in spite of amounts having been matured, petitioner did not make the payment. Complainant, therefore, alleged deficiency in service on the part of petitioner. Prayer was for payment of amount of Rs. 2,94,648/- with future interest. Compensation was also prayed. Petitioner could not deny receipt of the amounts, issue of FDRs and the maturity amount. However, its contention was that the amount received by it was by way of investment and question of any service did not arise. Its case was that petitioner was passing through difficult times and that the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had intervened in the matter and filed writ petition in the Bombay High Court where the High Court issued certain directions. In terms of those directions Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court was appointed as Private Receiver to sell the properties of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that complainant could file his claim before the said Private Receiver. District Forum, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 500/- and directed payment of maturity amount of FDRs with interest @ 15% per annum from the dates of maturity of FDRs till actual payments.

(3.) Aggrieved of the order of District Forum, petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. State Commission referred to earlier orders of this Commission wherein it had been held that when a Company or Firm invites deposits promising attractive rates of interest, it amounted rendering of financial service as it receives deposits from the customers and pays interest thereon. State Commission, therefore, rejected the contention of the petitioner that the complaint was not maintainable as no service was being rendered by the petitioner. State Commission also referred to the orders of the Bombay High Court in the writ petition filed by the SEBI and was of the view that it did not debar the complainant to file his complaint under the Act before the District Forum. It was noticed that complainant was not party in the proceedings before the Bombay High Court and there was no order of the High Court staying the proceedings under the Act.