TATA FINANCE LIMITED Vs. URMILA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -HEARD Mr. Joshi. The present case is a glaring example of deficiency on the part of the appellant and its agent respondent No. 2 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Finance. Admittedly, the appellant company through respondent No. 2 agent collected a draft of Rs. 10,000 from respondent No. 1-complainant on 13. 1. 1997 under a "fixed Deposits" scheme with a promise to pay double the amount i. e. Rs. 20,000 after 48 months. The receipt of deposits of the said draft obtained from the Bank of Madura now succeeded by ICICI Bank Ltd. , (the respondent No. 3 herein) drawn in favour of appellant, issued in favour of respondent No. 1-complainant by respondent No. 2 agent is filed and proved in evidence. The receipt was issued on behalf of appellant. However no term deposit receipt was ever issued to respondent No. 1-complainant nor the maturity amount was paid to her. It was on 9. 1. 2001, that she was informed by the respondent No. 3 bank that the amount of said draft is still outstanding i. e. to say no amount under the said demand draft has been collected by or credited to the appellant company. Needless to say that the respondent No. 1-complainant was not only deprived of amount of said draft but also of the benefits which she was to draw out of the said deposits with the appellant company. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant or its agent respondent No. 2 ever made any effort to trace the said draft or collect the amount from the drawee bank. They also did not seem to have informed the complainant about the loss of said draft or asked her to obtain duplicate draft so as to enable them to issued term deposit receipt. Under these circumstances, the Forum below was absolutely right in holding the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and directing it to pay the maturity amount to the complainant. However, we are of the view that respondent No. 2-agent should have been also held jointly and severally, liable for repayment of the said amount along with the appellant. We may further add that while making payment of the maturity amount, the appellant and respondent No. 2 would be entitled to obtain deed of subrogation from the complainant so as to enable them to receive payment of said draft from the respondent No. 3 bank. We rather direct respondent No. 3 bank to make payment of the amount of said draft to the appellant after completion of necessary formalities. In the matter of completion of said formalities the respondent No. 1-complainant shall extend the appellant, all cooperation and execute all such documents required either by the appellant or by respondent No. 3 bank. The Forum below has awarded interest on the said amount of Rs. 20,000 @ 12% p. a. from the date of maturity. We reduce this rate of interest to 9% p. a.

(2.) THE order impugned shall stand modified as aforesaid and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs. Appeal disposed of.