KUBER MUTUAL BENEFIT LTD Vs. RAJ VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioner, under Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have common facts and raise common questions for consideration and are directed against a common order dated 22.1.2001 passed by South District Forum (District Forum No. II), the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner Company, namely M/s. Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. , which is a Nidhi Company was registered under Sec.620-A of the Companies Act, 1956, whose object inter alia was to enable the members to save money, to invest their savings and to secure loans at favourable rates of interest. The Company invited the people to make deposits and to give excellent returns. In pursuance of the scheme of deposit, respondents had deposited their money in Fixed Deposits which were to carry interest at the agreed rate. After the date of maturity, the same were payable by the petitioner to the respondents together with interest. Since the petitioner Company failed to pay the amount of deposit together with interest at the agreed rate to the respondents, the respondents filed the complaints against the petitioner Company before the District Forum under Sec.12 of the Act with a prayer that petitioner be directed to refund the amount of deposit together with interest, compensation and costs. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint, filed by the respondents and directed the petitioner Company to refund the amount in question to the respondents with interest. The learned District Forum also awarded costs of litigation to the respondents. The orders passed by the learned District Forum were not complied with by the petitioner Company and respondents thereafter filed petitions before the District Forum for execution of the orders. Show Cause Notices were issued to the petitioner Company and in pursuance of the notices, petitioner Company filed detailed reply along with certain annexures. The gist of the reply and the annexures was that liquid money of the petitioner was lying in Fixed Deposits which were previously attached by the Income-tax Authorities. That the petitioner Company has a number of properties assessed value of which is more than the liabilities that the Company has to discharge. After hearing Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the respondents, the learned District Forum observed in its order dated 22.1.2001 that the list of properties attached by the petitioner Company with their reply may be sufficient to meet with the demands created by Forum's orders under execution but the Forum does not have any paraphernalia to keep the properties under attachment or to take further appropriate steps towards the auctioning of any-one of the properties for realisation of the money and to pay to the decree-holders. It was suggested by the decree-holder/respondents that all the decrees be sent to District Court under Sec.25 of the Act for executing the orders under due process of law. Accordingly, this contention of the respondents was accepted and all the decrees were ordered to be sent to the learned District Judge, Delhi with a certificate of non-execution with a request of getting the decrees executed in accordance with due process of law. A copy of forwarding letter addressed to the District Judge was also directed to be endorsed to the decree-holders/respondents so that they could obtain further orders from the learned District Judge, Delhi.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.1.2001, passed by learned South District Forum in execution applications, the petitioner has filed the present 84 revision petitions against the said order.