ROZY Vs. MOGA FINANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant Rozy, who was relegated to the Civil Court by the impugned order dated May 5, 1998 passed by District Forum, Moga. Facts are few, which are required to be noticed for the purpose of deciding this appeal.

(2.) Rozy deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party-M/s. Moga Finance Corporation, G. T. Road, Moga on January 7, 1993. Interest @ 15% per annum was payable on the amount and the date of maturity of the FDR was January 7, 1996. On April 9, 1997 Rozy approached the District Forum with the complaint, as the opposite party did not honour the FDR referred to above by making payment of the principal amount as well as interest, hence compensation of Rs.10,000/- in addition to the amount of the FDR was also claimed. Reply to the complaint was filed by the opposite party inter alia alleging that the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant was not a consumer. She had no locus standi to file the complaint as she was not the owner of the amount in dispute. Rozy care of Joginder Singh, G. T. Road, Moga was stated to be real owner of the amount. The complainant was taking benefit of her name. She was not the real owner. Suit should have been filed within three years as the FDR is to be treated as a promissory note. Similar pleas were taken on merits. A rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying the allegations of the opposite parties. The complainant was called upon to produce evidence. Her affidavit alongwith copy of the FDR was already on the record. An application was filed by the opposite party for returning the complaint to the complainant asserting that the matter could only be decided by the Civil Court after the parties were given full opportunity of producing evidence. The complainant Rozy was playing fraud with the Court by claiming the amount of the FDR. Reply to the application was filed by the complainant claiming herself to be the owner of the FDR, further stating that the custody of the FDR with the complainant itself was proof of its ownership. She offered to furnish indemnity bond against the payment of the FDR. The opposite party while making application was trying to delay the payment by various tactics. On hearing arguments on the application, the impugned order was passed. It is significant to be noticed that no evidence or documents were filed on behalf of the opposite party either with the written statement or with the application referred to above. Thus for all intents and purposes the impugned order has been passed on the pleadings of the opposite party. We are of the view that if this procedure is allowed to be followed, great injustice would be done to the members of the public, who make deposits for fixed terms with the Finance Companies so floated and after maturity when the turn of the Finance Companies comes to honour such FDRs again tactics are adopted even to the extent of denying ownership of the depositors of the amount deposited. It was not proper on the part of the District Forum to relegate the complainant to the Civil Court merely on the allegation made in the written statement without any cogent material having been produced to support the assertion in the written statement. Even otherwise after the complainant produced the FDR before the District Forum, on the basis of such FDR prima facie there should not have been any difficulty in disposing of the complaint on merits. It was suggested by Counsel for the respondent that the complainant might have filed a civil suit in response to the order passed by the District Forum. Be that as it may, the matter has to be gone into by the FORA and the choice is left to the complainant either to prosecute the complaint or the civil suit. However, merely on the assertion of the opposite party in the written statement, the right of the consumer to claim justice from the FORA cannot be denied.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum for decision according to law. Nothing said above would be taken into consideration on merits while deciding the complaint. Parties present are directed to appear before the District Forum on May 17, 1999. Copy of the order alongwith District Forum records be sent there promptly.