RUP LAL Vs. RANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANTS Shri Ravan Ram and Smt. Rani Devi had deposited Rs. 45,000 on 3. 2. 1998 for a period of 32 months to be matured into Rs. 90,000 on 3. 10. 2000 through Shri Rup Lal, Development Chamber Incharge of S. J. M. Agro Ltd. They alleged that offices of respondents i. e. , the Managing Director, Regional Manager, Chamber Incharge and others were closed. When the respondent No. 3 was approached, he had expressed his inability to refund the amount but assured the complainants that in the event of failure of the company to refund the amount, he would return the same. But he had not kept his promise. Respondent No. 1, the Managing Director abstained from contesting the complaints and hence the District Forum held that allegations of complainants qua respondent No. 1 go uncontested and un-controverted. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have contended that they were just employees of the respondent No. 1 and were not Directors of the Company and as such, they were not liable. District Forum, after hearing the arguments, held the respondent No. 1 deficient in rendering service in not returning the agreed amount and accordingly directed respondent No. 1 to pay to each complainant a sum of Rs. 90,000 upto the date of maturity and also to pay interest of 15% p. a. from the date of maturity till the realization of amount with Rs. 500 as cost to each of the complainants.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum the complainants have filed appeals before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla submitting that it is apparent from the facts of the case brought out on the record, and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 cannot escape from their liability merely on the ground that they were either agents or employees of the said Non-Banking Finance Company.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and analysis of the material on record, the State Commission modified the impugned order to the extent that liability in the case of both these complaints shall be not only of respondent No. 1 but of all the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally, rest of the order was undisturbed.