DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Vs. RAMAN MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint instituted, the District Forum ordered on 28.10.1998 that the principal sum of Rs.10,000/- together with interest totalling Rs.11,881/- which was the amount due on the date of maturity i. e.31.1.1998 along with further interest shall be payable by the DCM Financial Services Ltd. , New Delhi to the depositors Raman Mittal, Advocate, Chandigarh. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) The appellant did not contest the complaint in the District Forum. Here also, the factum of deposit and that the maturity value was Rs.11,881/- on 31.1.1998 has not been disputed. The sole plea taken up by the appellant is that there have been some proceedings before the Vice Chairman of the Company Law Board, New Delhi and on 17.7.1998 a scheme was announced and rate of interest has been reduced to 10% after maturity. A copy of the order dated 17.7.1998 has been placed on record. On behalf of the respondents, it has been urged that the suo motu proceedings are applicable to those on whom notice under proviso to Sec.45qa has been made. Since they are not part of this case, the aforesaid proceedings are not applicable to the complainants. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not show us any document pertaining to personal notice or even a general notice issued in this regard. It has further been pressed that notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act or Law, the District Forum has the jurisdiction to deal with complaints and borrower possessing an FDR could approach the Forum. At the time of arguments, we made an enquiry from the learned Counsel for the appellant whether any amount has been paid to the complainant who deposited the sum of Rs.10,000/- on 31.1.1997 and more than one year has passed after the date of maturity. The reply is not in the affirmative. Our attention has been invited to Gyan Singh and Ors. V/s. Carry on savings and Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors., 1994 3 CPJ 9, wherein it was observed that in view of the provisions contained under Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by way of the additional remedy, the complainant could approach the Forum. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.

(3.) Since the facts and issues are similar, the finding of the District Forum in Complaint No.667/1998 where the FDR was also in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and date of deposit was 26.11.1996 is hereby affirmed and Appeal No.189/1998 dismissed with costs Rs.1,000/-.