PREETI LAKHANI Vs. GOLDEN FOREST I LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant felt aggrieved against the order dated 24.10.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No.236 of 2002 filed by the appellant. The complaint case was dismissed on the ground that she had not filed affidavit in support of her version and could not prove deficiency in service on the part of the O. P.

(2.) The complaint was filed against M/s. Golden Forest (I) Limited through Shri R. K. Syal, Managing Director c/o Superintendent, Burail Jail, Chandigarh (U. T.) seeking payment of maturity amount of the investment of Rs.5,000/- on 22.11.1997 under the scheme floated by the respondent - M/s. Golden Forest (I) Limited. The photocopy of the receipt regarding the investment has been filed as Annexure C-1. The maturity value has been shown as Rs.10,000/- as against the amount invested being Rs.5,000/-. The said amount matured for payment on 22.5.2001. The investment was made on 22.11.1997. The complainant filed an application seeking payment of the maturity value under the scheme of deposit to the respondent vide letter photocopy Annexure C-2, sent under registered post (Copy Annexure C-3) but there was no response from the respondent which led to the filing of the complaint case. The complainant besides seeking the payment of the maturity value with interest @ 18% per annum sought Rs.20,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony, and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent did not file reply to the complaint case and the complaint case was proceeded ex parte vide zimini order dated 20.8.2002. The complaint case was fixed for ex parte evidence on 30.9.2002 on which date it was adjourned to 24.10.2002 as the final opportunity. On 24.10.2002, none appeared for the complainant. None also appeared for the O. P. The District Forum proceeded to decide the complaint case on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and as mentioned above dismissed the complaint.

(3.) Subsequently an application was moved for restoration of the case on 28.10.2002 on the ground that the learned Counsel for the complainant was busy in attending cases before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and he could reach the District Forum around 1.10 p. m. but the District Forum had been adjourned for the day. He also learnt from enquiring from the Reader that the complaint case has been dismissed in default.