SARVJEET KINRA Vs. MODERN DENIM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THESE appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as '1986 Act') against the order dated 23. 10. 2006 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant was dismissed on the ground that the respondents have been declared as Sick Unit under BIFR as such the complaint is not maintainable.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the above appeals are identical, except for the date and the amount of the fixed deposits, and as the legal controversies are common to all the cases, we are disposing of all matters by one common order. In order to appreciate the controversies raised in these cases, we would narrate the facts of Appeal No. 2069/06 which, in our view, would cover the entire spectrum of the questions raised before us. Facts of Appeal No. 2069/06, Sarvjeet Kinra (Smt.) v. M/s. Modern Denim Ltd.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal for determination of the issues may be stated thus. The complainant-appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 9,000 on 21. 11. 2006 and Rs. 10,000 on 4. 11. 1997, as Fixed Deposit in the joint names of herself and her husband, with the respondents for a period of one year and the deposit carried cumulative interest @16% p. a. The complainant-appellant alleged that instead of making payment of FDR on maturity, the respondent company formulated a scheme for repayment of FDR before the Company Law Board without informing the complaint. Thereafter, the respondents paid an amount of Rs. 3,600 on 28. 5. 1998 towards the first FDR and Rs. 2,700 on 1. 9. 1999 towards the second FDR. The complainant alleged that thereafter the respondents refused to make any payment to her on the ground that the respondents company has gone in BIFR. The complainant maintained that Section 22 (1) of BIFR does not apply to the Fixed Deposits and the respondents have committed deficiency in service by refusing to pay the maturity amount of the FDRs on wrong assumptions. The complainant, therefore, claimed the maturity amount, together with other compensation.