DIPTI ILESHBHAI RAWAL Vs. VINODBHAI VELJIBHAI MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original Opponent No.3 against whom, alongwith two other opponents the District Forum, Surendranagar has passed an order to jointly and severally pay Rs.43,200/- with interest @ 12% with cost to the original Complainant. The short facts inter-alia are as under :

(2.) The Opponent No.1 is the Rajkot branch office of the Tapovan Housing Finance Limited who were dealing with housing finance. The Opponent No.2 is the marketing agent of Opponent No.1 while the Opponent No.3, the present appellant was the local agent of the said Company at Surendranagar. The head office of the Company is at New Delhi. A scheme was published in newspapers to assist the needy persons for procuring loan for housing and to provide other facilities. As per the scheme the loan was to be procured payable by installments. The complainant who was in need of a house was attracted by the advertisement and approached the Opponent No.3 - present appellant for procuring loan of Rs.1,60,000.00. He was advised by the appellant that he has to apply for loan and deposit 25% amount of the loan with the opponents with some administrative expenses. The complainant managed Rs.40,000.00 i. e.25% of the total loan and paid the same by demand draft on 5/4/1991 and also Rs.3,200/- as administrative expenses. In all he paid Rs.43,200.00 to Opponent No.1. The Opponent No.2 executed an alleged guarantee deed on stamp paper of Rs.10/- assuring the complainant that he will get loan failing which he guaranteed return of deposit. After some length of the time the opponent did not give the loan amount to the complainant. He therefore demanded his money back. He was given a cheque for Rs.40,000.00 on 6/7/1991 but the same could not be enchased since dishonored.

(3.) The Opponent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear. The Opponent No.3, the present appellant appeared and filed written statement which is at Exh.6 denying the allegation leveled against her and stating that she was not connected with Opponent No.1. She merely introduced the complainant to Opponent No.2 and recommended to do the needful in the matter. She had not accepted the amount from the complainant either by cheque or by demand draft, there was no privacy of contract between her and the complainant etc. The District Forum passed the order directing to return the said amount jointly and severally with interest and cost. The Opponent No.3 has challenged the said order making her liable for the amount deposited by the complainant.