RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SHILPI SHAKT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the Order dtd. 04/10/2010 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission ') in First Appeal No.610/2009, whereby the State Commission while disposing of the Appeal filed by Rajiv Kumar Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) has directed the District Forum to issue Recovery Certificate against Mr. Sunil Shakt and Mr. Naresh Tyagi, Respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively, forthwith and in case of non-compliance of the same, directed prosecution as envisaged under Sec. 27 of the Act against the defaulters, in accordance with law. The State Commission has refrained itself from altering or enhancing the rate of interest or altering mode from simple to compound since the Order of the District Forum was not challenged by the Complainant and the same cannot be amended at this belated stage.

(2.) Concisely narrated, the facts leading to the filing of the Complaint are that the Complainant deposited a sum of 1,95,000.00 with M/s. Fintra System Ltd. in the year 1996 pursuant to an advertisement issued by the latter. It is averred that post dated cheques were given to the Complainant by the Respondents, who were Directors of M/s. Fintra Centre, M/s. Fintra System Ltd. and N.T. Financial Services. However, the same got dishonoured on presentation. The Complainant approached the Respondents for refund of the payment but the latter delayed the same for one reason or the other. It is further averred that the Complainant lost his mental balance and was confined to bed. Subsequently, he filed the Complaint before the District Forum praying direction to the Respondents to refund the amount deposited by him with interest.

(3.) The Respondents contested the Complaint by filing their Reply. The Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their reply, inter alia, contending that they have no concern with Fintra Centre which is a proprietory concern of Mr. Naresh Tyagi, Respondent No.3. That Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were directors of Fintra System Ltd. for which winding up proceedings were going on. The Official Liquidator has been appointed, who has taken over the assets of Fintra System Ltd. and Petitioner has also represented his claim before him for refund of the amount. It is also submitted that earlier a suit for recovery was filed by the Complainant before the Civil Court which was dismissed. That the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not concerned with the deposits made by the Complainant and, whatever be the liability is the liability of Respondent No.3 who is proprietor of Fintra Centre. The Respondent No.3 also appeared before the District Forum and filed his reply. It was, inter alia, contended that the Complaint was time barred as the last cheque was dishonoured in 1997. Therefore, the Complaint was not maintainable. That due to seizing of assets of Fintra System Ltd. by the Hon 'ble High Court, the proceedings before the District Forum could be closed and the Complaint be dismissed.