I S PAUL Vs. SANMAC MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the complainants have made deposits with the opposite party by way of fixed deposits under the schemes promoted by the opposite party. In all, a sum of Rs.1,56,137.88 p. has been invested by the complainants with the opposite party on different dates. Thus, totally about 14 deposits were made. Since neither the principal nor interest was paid, the complainants approached the lower Forum. It is stated in the complaint that the complainants approached the opposite party for refund of the amounts invested on their maturity, but they have not received either the interest or the principal due upon those investments. In this complaint, the opposite party was served, but they did not choose to appear or contest the claim. The lower Forum, without making any inquiry, passed the order on 9.10.2001 stating as the Company Law Board is seized of the matter and taken proceedings by framing a scheme, there cannot be two parallel proceedings and that the complaint is not maintainable and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. The lower Forum ought to have given an opportunity to the complainants to show whether they have received any notice from the Company Law Board or whether they have participated in the proceedings and given their consent for the framing of the scheme. But without considering those aspects, the lower Forum has passed the cryptic order which we are of the view cannot be maintained. The fact remains that the complainants have not been put on notice about any scheme either by the Company Law Board or by the opposite party. They have neither appeared nor given their consent nor have been given any opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, on the question of facts, even assuming that there are any proceedings pending before the Company Law Board, it cannot in any manner affect or extinguish the rights of the complainants to approach this Forum. That apart, the National Commission has held in the decision reported in 2003 CPR 82 that in such cases, the complainant is entitled to proceed and the proceedings of the Company Law Board cannot in any manner affect the rights of the parties. Therefore, the decision of the lower Forum deserves to be set aside. On facts, there is no dispute about the deposits having been made by the complainants. For it is the case that any amount was repaid by the opposite party to the complainants. Therefore, this is a clear case of deficiency in service.

(2.) Hence, the complaint has to be accepted. As a consequence, this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.250/-. The order passed by the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-. There will be a direction to the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.1,56,137.88 p. with interest at 12% p. a. from the respective dates of maturity along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and hardship and cost of Rs.1,250/-. Appeal allowed.