SURENDRA M. KHANDHAR Vs. PRAFUL SURYAKANTRAO BECCHEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 13/4/2015 in First Appeal No. A/10/195 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the 'State Commission') dismissing the appeal and upholding order dtd. 24/6/2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 175 of 2004.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that he was an Independent Director in Suman Motels Ltd. The respondent had deposited Rs.1,00,000.00 with M/s Suman Resorts (India) Ltd in response to a scheme of 'Holiday Bonds' which had offered interest @18% p.a. with effect from 27/6/2004 and dividend thereon. It is submitted that Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. went into liquidation in 2003 and an Official Liquidator was appointed on 28/3/2009. Respondent no. 1/complainant had filed Complaint No. 175/2004 under Sec. 12 of the Act for recovery of money against Suman Motels Ltd. and Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. The District Forum passed ex parte orders against the revision petitioner directing repayment with interest and cost. As this order was followed by a warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner, he deposited the decreed amount with the District Forum even though he had not been a party to the proceedings before the District Forum. His plea not to release the amount till disposal of the matter was not adjudicated and the money released to the respondent/complainant. The revision petitioner states that his appeal A/10/195 before the State Commission was declared infructuous. It is contended that Suman Motels Ltd. and Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. are independent entities and the State Commission erred in concluding that Suman Motels Ltd. was a subsidiary of Suman Resorts (India) Ltd. It is averred that the proceedings were erroneously dismissed on the ground of limitation by the State Commission.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the lower fora erred in fastening liability of a company under liquidation (Suman Resorts (India) Ltd.) on to another company Suman Motels Ltd. and concurrently fastened on a person who is an Independent Director of this Company.