HARSH AGARWAL Vs. VIPUL BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum in nine different complaints. In all these complaints, complainants had sought refund of the money deposited by them with the petitioner. It was not disputed that the petitioner did receive the deposit and had agreed to refund the amount on maturity with interest @ 18% per annum. When the amount became due and payable petitioner defaulted which led to filing of the complaints. Petitioner was sued being the managing partner of the Non-Banking Finance Company M/s. Anshuman Financier. District Forum allowed all the complaints and directed refund of the amounts deposited by the complainants with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. Each complainant was also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) Petitioner was ex parte before the District Forum. However, since he did not dispute the factum of deposit of payment of the same with interest @ 18% per annum, it is not necessary for the petitioner to agitate the matter in appeal against the order of the District Forum yet he filed nine appeals which again were dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- each in the appeals.

(3.) Still feeling aggrieved, petitioner has come to this Commission under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was submitted before us by the Counsel of the petitioner that after the order of the District Forum petitioner deposited the amount as awarded by the District Forum twice over because there was another order of the State Commission. However, State Commission recorded in its impugned order statement of the Counsel of the complainants that there has not been any compliance with the order of the District Forum. State Commission, therefore, observed that it, therefore, is not concerned with this aspect of the matter. It is for the District Forum to go into the question in execution proceedings if any, taken.