National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Phoolan Wanti vs Janpriya Finance & Industrial on 19 November, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 141 OF 1999
PHOOLAN
WANTI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 001
SHYAM
SUNDAR AHUJA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 002
GURDEEP
SACHDEVA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 003
PARAMJIT
SINGH SACHDEVA ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 004
AMARJEET
KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 005
GURDEEP
SINGH SACHDEVA ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 006
GURDEEP
SINGH SACHDEVA ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 007
SARWAN
KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 008
GEETA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 009
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 010
RAJBIR
SINGH CHAUHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 011
RAMAKANK
SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 012
HARBANS LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 013
HARISH CHUG ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 014
RAM CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 015
KAILASH
ARORA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 016
SHAKUNTLA
(DEAD)THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
017
PREM
PARKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 018
PREM CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 019
SEWA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 020
PARSHOTAM
DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 021
SITA DEVI
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 022
JAI PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 023
SAHIB DAYAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 024
MEHAR INGH
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
025
HARI CHAND
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
026
ISHWER DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 027
ISHWER
GROVER (DEAD)THROUGH LR.. COMPLAINANT NO.28
LEKH RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 029
NARAIN DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 030
ATTAR CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 031
JAGMOHAN
SARUP ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 032
BISHAMBER
DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 033
HARI KISHAN ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 034
PRAM
PARKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 035
RAM CHAND
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
036
KRISHAN LAL
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 037
NARENDER
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 038
FAQIR CHAND
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 039
KEWAL
KRISHAN MAHNA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 040
GOVIND LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 041
SANTOK
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 042
ASHA NAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 043
RAJ RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 044
RAM PIARI
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 045
RAM DITTA
KHURANA (DEAD)
THROUGH LR
COMPLAINANT NO. 046
ISHWER LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 047
RAJ KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 048
BAL SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 049
SOM NATH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 050
SHANTI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 051
RAMJI DASS
MUNJHAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 052
INDER PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 053
KRISHNA
GROVER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 054
JIA LAL PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 055
RAMESH
CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 056
BHAG SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 057
RANBIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 058
RAM CHAND
SEWAK (DEAD)
THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 059
VEENA
SALUJA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 060
RAJ PAL
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR... COMPLAINANT NO. 061
AJUB ALI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 062
NOOR JAHAN
BEGUM (DEAD)
THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 063
SATISH
KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LR.. COMPLAINANT NO. 064
RAJ KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 065
ISHWER
PRUTHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 066
KRISHAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 067
HAMELU
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 068
RAMESH
KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 069
KRISHAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 070
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 071
SUKHWINDER
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 072
GIAN CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 073
SABHU DIN
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
074
GURBAKSH
LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 075
DAYANAND
SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 076
KASHMIRI
LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
077
SUDERSHAN
SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 078
NARAIN DEVI
GROVER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 079
JAGDISH LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 080
HARISH
KUMAR NARANG ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 081
RAM PAUL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 082
GAJU DIN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 083
PHOOLA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 084
TILAK RAJ
VERMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 085
PANNU RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 086
VIMLA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 087
SUBHASH
CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 088
RANDIR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 089
TULSI DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 090
JAGSISH
CHANDER (DEAD)
THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 091
ARJUN DEV ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 092
GHANWER
DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 093
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 094
RAMJI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 095
OM SACHDEVA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 096
VINOD
BUDHIRAJA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 097
KAMLA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 098
RAM SARUP
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
099
HANS RAJ
PARUTHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 100
CHELA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 101
MANOHAR LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 102
MANGH RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 103
BHIWANI
DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 104
DHARAM DEV
(DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 105
SATYA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 106
PREM
PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 107
TIRATH DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 108
SUMAN LATA
SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 109
OM PRAKASH
GIRI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 110
SHANKUNLATA
SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 111
ATTAR CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 112
HARISH
CHANDRA SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 113
JIA LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 114
SANAT KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 115
RAM KISHORE
VATS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 116
JAGAT RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 117
GHANSHYAM
DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 118
JYOTI
PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 119
DEVI DAYAL
SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 120
RAM SARUP
PANDEY ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 121
GORDHAN
DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 122
RAM BHAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 123
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 124
MANILALA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 125
SOMNATH
VERMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 126
GUGGAN RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 127
SUKHDEV ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 128
NAGDA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 129
HARISH CHANDER ... COMPLAINANT
NO. 130
JAI SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 131
KARTAR
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 132
HOSIYARI
DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 133
PRAKASH
MALIK ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 134
SATYA VIR
SINGH MALIK ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 135
JAI NARAIN
GOOLIA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 136
CHANDER BHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 137
HARBANS LAL
SUNEJA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 138
NARESH
KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 139
RAM SINGH (DEAD) D) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 140
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 141
ABNESH
CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 142
SANTOSH
KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 143
SATYA DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 144
BHIM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 145
YASHPAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 146
SHRI CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 147
HEM RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 148
MANGE RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 149
GEETA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 150
SURJEET
KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 151
JAI BHAGWAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 152
JAGMINDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 153
PRITMO DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 154
HEM CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 155
BISHAN DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 156
INDERJEET ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 157
PRITHVI
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 158
RAMBIR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 159
PRADEEP
KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 160
JAI KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 161
ISHAM SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 162
RAJBIR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 163
SOMPAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 164
GOPI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 165
KALU RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 166
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 167
REKHA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 168
RAMJI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 169
KANTA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 170
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 171
JARNAIL
SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 172
GOPAL DAS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 173
KRISHAN LAL
MATA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 174
RITA KUMARI
...
COMPLAINANT NO. 175 BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LR... COMPLAINANT NO. 176 HARI CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 177VINOD KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 178PUSHPA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 179OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 180SOMA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 181ASHOK KUMAR SAPRA (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 182GULSHAN KUMR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 183RAJ KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 184KASHMIRI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 185KASHMIRI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 186YUGDUTT VERMA (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 187JAIPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.188 JAGMAL SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 189HANS RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 190KAMLESH KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 191RAMESH KUMAR COMPLAINANT NO. 192 MANOJ KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 193 KARTA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 194LEELA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 195NEELAM KUMARI COMPLAINANT NO. 196 KAMLA DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 197PREMI DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 198 BALWANT SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 199MANI RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 200NATHA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 201CHANDER WATI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 202OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 203 SANTOSH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 204SATYA DEV (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.205 SHYAM SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 206RASID KHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 207MANGE RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 208SHAKUNTLA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 209PARAMJEET ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 210PRAKASH KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LR.. COMPLAINANT NO. 211 JOGINDER KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 212SUKHWINDER KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 213HANS RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 214PRAKASH KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LR..
COMPLAINANT NO. 215OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 216 JASBIR KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 217MADAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 218HARBANS SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 219LALITA GANDHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 220BIHARI LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 221ASHOK KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 222SURESH PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 223AMARJEET KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 224ASHOK KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 225JOGINDER SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 226UMESH CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 227PURANCHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 228LILAWATI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 229SUMITRA DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 230SHAVITRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 231DHARAM SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 232MANI RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 233MAMTA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 234RAM BAI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 235 SUGRIV ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 236HARI SINGH RANA (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 237SHAKUNNTLU RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 238JAGAT RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 239PREM RAO ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 240CHANDO RANI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 241 OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 242 BABU RAM MORIA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 243SIYARAM GOD ... COMPLAINANT NO. 244 KANHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 245MAHABIRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 246RAM SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 247RAJINDER KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 248RAJINDER KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 249DHUNI CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 250GOPAL KRISHAN DUTTA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 251DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 252 RAJINDER KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 253JAGDISH LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 254 TULSI DAS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 255BALIHAR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 256GURMIT SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 257VINOD KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 258MOHAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 259 SVITRI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 260MAHMOOD HUSSAIN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 261BISHAMBER DAYAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 262ANITA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 263PURAN MAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 264KISHAN CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 265CHAJU RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 266 JIWAN RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 267KALAWATI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 268MOHINDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 269SHRI NIWASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 270ASHA SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 271JUGAL SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 272CHANDER KANT SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 273ASHOK SINGLE ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 274VIDYA NAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 275VIDYA NAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 276SHAYM LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 277SUNDER LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 278KRISHNA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 279GOPAL DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 280GOBIND LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 281FATHA SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 282JASBIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 283PREM KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 284ASHOK KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 285PISHORI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 286 PUNA SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 287VEERBHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 288PREETAM LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 289NANAK CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 290KEWAL KRISHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 291NARAIN DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 292LAL CHAND KAPOOR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 293 SHAYM LAL SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 294RAM LAL MALHOTRA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 295HARDWARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 296GOPAL MALHOTRA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 297ATTAR CHAND TOMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 298HARI SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 299ANAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 300PALE RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 301RAM DHARI GOSWAMI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 302MADAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 303SAI DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 304MULAKH RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 305RAM CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 306MOHAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 307MAMAN RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 308JAWALA SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 309BHULLAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 310SAVITRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 311SAVITRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 312BHIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 313SURESH KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 314DHARA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 315SUBHASH MALIK ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 316KARAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 317SHASHI BALA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 318INDERJEET ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 319GORJA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 320INDERPAL HARIJAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 321SOMDUTT ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 322KUSHAM LATA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 323VIKAS KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 324RAGHBIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 325LALI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 326ANIL KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 327CHAMELI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 328RAM DAS SAINI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 329MALKHAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 330KARAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 331RAI SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 332KARAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 333CHETRO DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 334GULAB SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 335Versus Janpriya Finance & Industrial Investment (India) Limited Through:
Its Board of Directors, Sh.
Tara Prakash Bhattacharjes, Shanti Ranjan Dass & Mr. Debabrapa Ghatak, 45, Shekspear Sarini, Calcutta (West Bengal) Opposite Party (s) BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Complainants : Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. J. M. Babri, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 19th NOVEMBER, 2012 O R D E R JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The key question swirls around the question, whether this complaint is barred by time.
It is to be seen whether the present complaint was filed within the leeway prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. If it is not filed within time whether the explanation given by the complainant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is lucid or lame.
2. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay are as follows. Jana Priya Finance and Industrial Investment (I) Limited with its head office at 113 Park Street Calcutta, West Bengal, Opposite Party in this case, opened its 176 branches throughout India and started collecting funds from general public. They also opened branches at Karnal as well as Panipat. They used to collect the funds and open bank accounts in the name of the opposite party. Receipts were also issued by the head office at Calcutta. On maturity, they used to make the payment of maturity amount alongwith interest. This process continued till 1988. Thereafter, out of blue, they stopped making payments, regularly. As many as 335 complainants did not get their maturity amounts with interest despite several requests made to OP. The legal notice sent to the OP also did not ring the bell. Ultimately the instant complaint by all the abovementioned consumers was filed before this commission on 11.5.1999.
3. One Prafulla Chandra Jaina filed suit no. 529 of 1992 in the Honble High Court of Calcutta on the plea that there was mismanagement in the OP company. The Honble High Court of Calcutta vide its order dated 23.03.1993 ordered that the whole work of the aforesaid company to be centralized in the head office at 113, Park Street, Calcutta. The Honble High Court also stayed all the proceedings against Jana Priya Finance and Industrial Investment (I) Limited. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.03.1993 is reproduced as follows:-
(9) In order to centralize the working of the respondent no. 1 for administrative conveniences, the entire work should be centralized in the office situated in the premises no. 113, Park Street, Calcutta, so that the activities of the respondent no. 1 can be revived as early as possible.
(10) One year time is given to comply with all the statutory requirements for the revival and other activities of the respondent no. 1, statutory or non-statutory. There shall be a stay of all proceedings of any nature and description against the respondent no. 1 for a period of one year. In any event no proceeding be commenced against the respondent no. 1 without prior leave of this Court.
4. The opposite party in Dainik Punjab Kesari dated 13.04.1994 advertised that:-
Please note that the Division bench of the Honble High Court at Calcutta was pleased to pass an order on 30th March, 1994 directing all Depositors including those who have filed proceedings before the various CONSUMER FORUMS to submit their claim directly to the Company by 30th April, 1994 to enable the Company to prepare final scheme for making payment to the Depositors. Please further note that the Claim if any, submitted after 30th day of April, 1994 will not get its place in the Scheme of Payment.
In the premises, the Depositors are requested to submit their claim directly to the Companys Regd. Office at 113, Park Street, Calcutta-700016 in terms of the said Order passed by the Honble Division Bench within 30th day of April, 1994.
The above said paper has been filed on the record, which has been admitted by the opposite party in its reply.
5. All the records were sent to Calcutta. Vide its order dated 11.11.1997, the Honble High Court of Calcutta passed the following order:-
The court: Mr. B. R. Chakraborty, the Auditor appointed in terms of the order of this Court earlier, is directed to scrutinise the claims of the petitioners herein within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order and in the event of any recommendation for payment by Shri Chakraborty, the company is directed to make such payment. Be it recorded that Sri Chakraborty would be at liberty to obtain the views of both the claimants as well as that of the company before passing any such direction on to the company. In the event the Auditor feels it expedient to call for certain documentary evidence, he would be at liberty to do so and parties are directed to furnish the same with utmost expedition. The payments to be made by the company shall have to be effected directedly to the depositors against proper discharge.
The interim orders already passed stand confirmed. The application stands disposed of as above.
By reason of earlier orders of payment to the plaintiffs in the suit as also the added parties, question of keeping the appeal or suit pending does not and cannot arise. As such, the appeal being No. 818 of 1992 as also the suit being No. 529 of 1992 upon treating the same as on the days list, stand disposed of alongwith the application for stay. The undertakings in terms of prayer (a) of the stay petition stand discharged.
This order is being passed having due regard to the factum that the company, Janapriya Finance & Industrial Investment (India) Ltd. is now discharging its functions in accordance with the orders passed by this Court from time to time.
Liberty to apply.
All parties including the Auditor are to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.
Sd/- Umesh Chandra Banerjee 11.11.1997. Sd/- Sidheshwar Narayan.
6. In the meantime, the opposite party offered highly slashed amount for example Phoolanwanti was offered an amount of Rs. 572/- against her maturity amount of Rs. 5,000/-, Gurdeep Singh was offered Rs. 520/- against his claimed amount of Rs. 4,000/-, Paramjeet Singh was offered Rs. 728/- against his claim of Rs. 4,000/- etc. The complainants numbering 335 did not accept the said offer and filed the claims in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 11.05.1999.
As per Honble High Courts order, the claim of the 335 complainants were to be scrutinized by the auditor on 16.12.04. An amount of Rs. 90,440/- was deposited in the National Commission by the opposite party as per the Chartered Accountant report and M.D. report. In the complaint, it is avered that the maximum amount of the investors pertained to the small investors/complainants who could not get their maturity amount realized from the company and it was impossible for all the small investors to file their recovery suit in the court of Calcutta as expenses for going to Calcutta and filing the suit was obviously more than what was likely to be realized by each of the investors individually. The stay was vacated by the Calcutta High Court on 11.11.1997 and the complaint was filed within 2 years thereafter.
7. When the case was fixed for final disposal before this Commission (Predecessor Bench) on 06.09.2011, the Honble Commission raised an objection of two years limitation for filing the cases. Though, according to the complainants the same point was not raised by the opposite party. (This is a wrong plea.) The dates of maturity of the complainants expired in September, 1991 and September, 1992. This application for condonation of delay was filed in the court on 07.09.2011.
8. The above said application was contested by the opposite party. They admitted that public notice was published in Dainik Punjab Kesari on 13.04.1994. It is explained that in para no. 5 of the preliminary objection, opposite party took specific objection regarding the limitation. The cause of action of each complainant had arisen during the period 1988 to 1994. The complaint was filed on 17.05.1999. Consequently, the case of the petitioner is barred by time. It is explained that the petitioner can exclude the time in computing the limitation period to the extent of 4 years 7 months and 18 days i.e. with effect from 23.03.1993 to 11.11.1997. In case, two years period is also included the total period comes to 6 years 7 months and 18 days. Complaint was filed on 17.05.1999. It is submitted that as per the submissions of the complainants only those cases which are within limitation in which the date of maturity is 01.10.1992 or thereafter are recovered under the limitation and not all the cases of 335 complainants are covered. It is contended that the public notice in Dainik Punjab Kesari on 13.04.1994 is not an acknowledgment of law within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Section 18 talks about the effect of acknowledgment in writing before expiring the prescribed period for suit. There is no written acknowledgement and the suit is hopelessly barred by time. Only complainants no. 1 to 13 have submitted their claim and offers of payment was made to them. The said offered amount can only be recoverable regarding which there is no complaint of any breach. It is explained that 89 complainants out of 335 present complainants had already approached the concerned District Forum and had obtained the awards in their favour.
9. In the written statement the following averments were made. This Commission vide its order dated 07.01.1997 ordered that since the Honble High Court of Calcutta was already seized of the matter and had appointed a Chartered Accountant for the specific purpose of entertaining all the claims as against the opposite party scrutinizing them and making payment to such of the claimants whose claims were found to be supported by adequate material, it is not proper for this Commission to embark upon a concurrent adjudication into the contentions put forward in this revision. The complainants were directed to put forward their respective claims before the Chartered Accountant appointed by the Honble High Court of Calcutta and produce all materials before him to substantiate their respective claims and if he is satisfied about the bona fides of the claimants, payment of the amount found due to the claimants being made.
10. Again each individual complainant has a separate claim against the opposite party and each one individual complainant has to prove and substantiate his own individual claim on merits.
11. It was admitted that contents of para 10 of the complaint are a matter of record. This para pertains to the advertisement dated 13.04.1994. It was explained that the advertisement dated 13.04.1994 did not cover the false, fabricated and duplicate claims of the depositors. The payment was to be made after due verification and recommendation of the auditor (Chartered Accountant) appointed by the Honble High Court of Calcutta. The present complaint is barred by principle of subjudice and res adjudicata. The present complaint is hopelessly barred by time.
FINDINGS
12. First of all, we will decide the question of acknowledgement, which is purported to have been made on 13.04.1994. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the opposite party has never admitted that it had made acknowledgement on 13.04.1994.
13. The Opposite party in its written statement has admitted that this public notice was given by them. They have also admitted in so many words that the genuine claims of the investors are to be paid off. Since the Honble High Court has given the investors liberty to take back the investment, therefore question of res judicata or subjudice does not arise. Consequently, there lies no rub in assuming that the original paper furnished to the newspaper were signed by the opposite party or its agent. The opposite party did not dispute this fact. Consequently, it has to be assumed that the period of 2 years was further extended with effect from 13.04.1994. There can be no conflictions on this point as well because these facts were admitted in the written statement itself and are legally sound.
14. Now, let us turn to the initial period, that is the crucial one. The time of limitation in this case starts from 13.04.1992 i.e. 2 years before time of limitation was extended by 2 years. Consequently, the maturity date which expired after 13.04.1992 is within time but the maturity date which expired prior to 13.04.1992 is barred by time. It stands proved that some of the claims are within time and other claims are barred by time. We will discuss whose cases are within time and whose cases are barred by time, in the following paras.
15. We again advert to the advertisement dated 13.04.1994, the limitation stood extended to 13.04.1996 i.e. by two another years. However, due to the above said stay granted by Honble High Court, the complainant could not file the complaint before the Consumer Court. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent was that vide order dated 23.03.1993, the complainant should have sought relief from the Honble High Court to proceed against the opposite party.
16. We see no force in these arguments. It appears that the stay continued till 11.11.1997. Although, the interim order was confirmed vide order dated 11.11.1997, yet the Auditor General was appointed and the company was directed to make payment to its depositors/investors. Auditor General was given the authority to probe this case. In other words, the stay stood vacated for the disbursal of the amount to the depositors. The order was pronounced on 11.11.1997, consequently we find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the complainants that due to the above said stay granted by the Calcutta High Court they could not file the complainant till 11.11.1997. The time started running from 11.11.1997 and the complaint was filed on 11.05.1999 i.e. within time for those investors whose maturity did not expire till 13.04.1992. By no strech of imagination, it can be said that it was incumbent upon the creditors to seek the relief of proceeding against the O.P. under all the circumstances. The language of the order in this context is very clear, i.e. In any event no proceeding be commenced against the respondent no. 1 without prior leave of this court.
17. We hereby give the list of:-
(A) Those promoters whose amount stand already settled and does not come within the purview of this Commission:-
PHOOLAN WANTI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 001
HARISH CHUG ...COMPLAINANT NO. 014
RAM CHANDER ...COMPLAINANT NO. 015
KAILASH ARORA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 016
SHAKUNTLA (DEAD)THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.017
PREM PARKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 018PREM CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 019SEWA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 020PARSHOTAM DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 021SITA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 022 JAI PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 023SAHIB DAYAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 024MEHAR INGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
025HARI CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
026ISHWER DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 027ISHWER GROVER (DEAD)THROUGH LR... COMPLAINANT NO.28 LEKH RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 029NARAIN DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 030ATTAR CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 031JAGMOHAN SARUP ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 032BISHAMBER DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 033HARI KISHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 034PRAM PARKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 035RAM CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
036KRISHAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 037 NARENDER SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 038FAQIR CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 039 KEWAL KRISHAN MAHNA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 040GOVIND LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 041SANTOK SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 042ASHA NAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 043RAJ RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 044RAM PIARI (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 045 RAM DITTA KHURANA (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 046 ISHWER LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 047RAJ KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 048BAL SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 049SOM NATH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 050SHANTI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 051RAMJI DASS MUNJHAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 052INDER PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 053KRISHNA GROVER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 054JIA LAL PAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 055RAMESH CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 056BHAG SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 057RANBIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 058RAM CHAND SEWAK (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 059VEENA SALUJA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 060RAJ PAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR.. COMPLAINANT NO. 061 AJUB ALI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 062NOOR JAHAN BEGUM (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 063SATISH KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 064RAJ KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 065ISHWER PRUTHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 066KRISHAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 067HAMELU SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 068RAMESH KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 069KRISHAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 070OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 071SUKHWINDER SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 072GIAN CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 073SABHU DIN (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
074GURBAKSH LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 075DAYANAND SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 076KASHMIRI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
077SUDERSHAN SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 078NARAIN DEVI GROVER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 079JAGSISH LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 080HARISH KUMAR NARANG ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 081RAM PAUL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 082GAJU DIN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 083PHOOLA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 084TILAK RAJ VERMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 085PANNU RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 086 VIMLA RANI ... COMPLAINANT NO. 087SUBHASH CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 088RANDIR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 089TULSI DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 090JAGSISH CHANDER (DEAD) THROUGH LR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 091ARJUN DEV ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 092GHANWER DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 093OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 094RAMJI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 095OM SACHDEVA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 096VINOD BUDHIRAJA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 097KAMLA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 098RAM SARUP (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO.
099HANS RAJ PARUTHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 100MANILALA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 125(B) Those promoters whose case is barred by time:-
GURDEEP SACHDEVA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 003
PARAMJIT SINGH SACHDEVA ... COMPLAINANT NO. 004 AMARJEET KAUR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 005
GURDEEP SINGH SACHDEVA ... COMPLAINANT NO. 006 GURDEEP SINGH SACHDEVA ... COMPLAINANT NO. 007 SARWAN KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 008
GEETA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 009
OM PRAKASH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 010
RAJBIR SINGH CHAUHAN ...COMPLAINANT NO. 011
HARBANS LAL ...COMPLAINANT NO. 013
CHELA RAM ...COMPLAINANT NO. 101
SUMAN LATA SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 109
OM PRAKASH GIRI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 110
SHANKUNLATA SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 111
ATTAR CHAND ...COMPLAINANT NO. 112
HARISH CHANDRA SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 113
JIA LAL ...COMPLAINANT NO. 114
SANAT KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 115
RAM KISHORE VATS ...COMPLAINANT NO. 116
JAGAT RAM ...COMPLAINANT NO. 117
GHANSHYAM DASS ...COMPLAINANT NO. 118
JYOTI PRAKASH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 119
DEVI DAYAL SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 120
RAM SARUP PANDEY ...COMPLAINANT NO. 121
GORDHAN DASS ...COMPLAINANT NO. 122
RAM BHAJ ...COMPLAINANT NO. 123
OM PRAKASH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 124
SOMNATH VERMA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 126
GUGGAN RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 127 SUKHDEV ...COMPLAINANT NO. 128
NAGDA RAM ...COMPLAINANT NO. 129
HARISH CHANDER ...COMPLAINANT NO. 130
JAI SINGH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 131
JAI NARAIN GOOLIA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 136
NARESH KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 139
SANTOSH KUMARI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 143
SATYA DEVI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 144
YASHPAL ...COMPLAINANT NO. 146
SHRI CHAND ...COMPLAINANT NO. 147
MANGE RAM ...COMPLAINANT NO. 149
GEETA RAM ...COMPLAINANT NO. 150
SURJEET KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 151
JAI BHAGWAN ...COMPLAINANT NO. 152
JAGMINDER ...COMPLAINANT NO. 153
PRITMO DEVI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 154
HEM CHAND ...COMPLAINANT NO. 155
BISHAN DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 156 INDERJEET ...COMPLAINANT NO. 157
PRITHVI SINGH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 158
RAMBIR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 159
JAI KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 161
ISHAM SINGH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 162
RAJBIR ...COMPLAINANT NO. 163
SOMPAL ...COMPLAINANT NO. 164
GOPI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.165
KALU RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.166
RAMJI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 169KANTA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 170 OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 171GOPAL DAS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 173KRISHAN LAL MATA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 174RITA KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 175BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 176 HARI CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 177VINOD KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 178PUSHPA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 179OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 180SOMA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 181KASHMIRI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 185KASHMIRI LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 186YUGDUTT VERMA (DEAD) THROUGH LR.
COMPLAINANT NO. 187NEELAM KUMARI COMPLAINANT NO. 196 MANI RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 200NATHA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 201CHANDER WATI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 202OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 203 SANTOSH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 204SATYA DEV (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.
205SHYAM SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 206RASID KHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 207MANGE RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 208SHAKUNTLA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 209PARAMJEET ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 210PRAKASH KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LR.. COMPLAINANT NO. 211 JOGINDER KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 212SUKHWINDER KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 213HANS RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 214PRAKASH KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LR.. COMPLAINANT NO. 215 OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 216 JASBIR KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 217MADAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 218HARBANS SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 219LALITA GANDHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 220BIHARI LAL NAGPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 221 AMARJEET KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 224ASHOK KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 225JOGINDER SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 226UMESH CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 227PURANCHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 228LILAWATI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 229SUMITRA DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 230SHAVITRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 231DHARAM SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 232MANI RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 233MAMTA RANI COMPLAINANT NO. 234 RAM BAI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 235 SUGRIV ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 236HARI SINGH RANA (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 237 SHAKUNNTLU RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 238JAGAT RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 239PREM RAO ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 240CHANDO RANI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 241 OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 242 SIYARAM GOD ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 244KANHI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 245MAHABIRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 246RAJINDER KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 248RAJINDER KAUR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 249DHUNI CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 250GOPAL KRISHAN DUTTA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 251DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 252 RAJINDER KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 253JAGDISH LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 254 TULSI DAS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 255BALIHAR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 256GURMIT SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 257VINOD KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 258MOHAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.
259SVITRI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 260MAHMOOD HUSSAIN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 261BISHAMBER DAYAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 262 ANITA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 263PURAN MAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 264KISHAN CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 265CHAJU RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.
266JIWAN RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 267KALAWATI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 268MOHINDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 269SHRI NIWASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 270ASHA SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 271JUGAL SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 272CHANDER KANT SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 273ASHOK SINGLE ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 274SHAYM LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 277SUNDER LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 278KRISHNA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 279 GOPAL DASS ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 280GOBIND LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 281FATHA SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 282JASBIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 283PREM KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 284ASHOK KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 285PISHORI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 286 PUNA SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 287VEERBHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 288PREETAM LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 289NANAK CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 290KEWAL KRISHAN ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 291NARAIN DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 292LAL CHAND KAPOOR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 293SHAYM LAL SHARMA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 294RAM LAL MALHOTRA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 295HARDWARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 296GOPAL MALHOTRA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 297ATTAR CHAND TOMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 298HARI SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 299ANAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 300PALE RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 301RAM DHARI GOSWAMI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 302MADAN LAL ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 303SAI DASS COMPLAINANT NO. 304 MULAKH RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 305RAM CHAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 306MOHAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 307MAMAN RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 308JAWALA SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 309BHULLAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 310SAVITRI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 311BHIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 313SURESH KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 314 DHARA ... COMPLAINANT NO. 315SUBHASH MALIK ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 316ANIL KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 327CHAMELI DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 328GULAB SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 335(C) Those promoters whose case is within time:
SHYAM SUNDAR AHUJA ... COMPLAINANT NO. 002RAMAKANK SHARMA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 012
MANOHAR LAL ...COMPLAINANT NO. 102
MANGH RAJ ...COMPLAINANT NO. 103
BHIWANI DASS ...COMPLAINANT NO. 104
DHARAM DEV (DEAD) THROUGH LR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 105 SATYA RANI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 106
PREM PRAKASH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 107
TIRATH DASS ...COMPLAINANT NO. 108
KARTAR SINGH ...COMPLAINANT NO. 132
HOSIYARI DEVI ...COMPLAINANT NO. 133
PRAKASH MALIK ...COMPLAINANT NO. 134
SATYA VIR SINGH MALIK ... COMPLAINANT NO. 135 CHANDER BHAN COMPLAINANT NO. 137 HARBANS LAL SUNEJA ...COMPLAINANT NO. 138
RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.140
OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 141ABNESH CHANDER ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 142BHIM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.
145HEM RAJ ... COMPLAINANT NO. 148 PRADEEP KUMAR ... COMPLAINANT NO. 160 OM PRAKASH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 167 REKHA RANI ... COMPLAINANT NO. 168JARNAIL SINGH ... COMPLAINANT NO.
172ASHOK KUMAR SAPRA (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 182 GULSHAN KUMR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 183RAJ KUMARI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 184JAIPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 188 JAGMAL SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 189HANS RAJ ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 190KAMLESH KUMARI ... COMPLAINANT NO. 191 RAMESH KUMAR COMPLAINANT NO. 192 MANOJ KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO. 193 KARTA RAM ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 194LEELA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 195KAMLA DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 197PREMI DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR COMPLAINANT NO.
198BALWANT SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 199ASHOK KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 222 SURESH PAL ... COMPLAINANT NO. 223BABU RAM MORIA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 243 RAM SINGH ... COMPLAINANT NO. 247VIDYA NAND ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 275 VIDYA NAND ... COMPLAINANT NO. 276 SAVITRI DEVI ... COMPLAINANT NO. 312KARAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 317SHASHI BALA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 318INDERJEET ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 319GORJA RANI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 320INDERPAL HARIJAN ... COMPLAINANT NO. 321 SOMDUTT ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 322KUSHAM LATA ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 323VIKAS KUMAR ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 324RAGHBIR SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 325LALI DEVI COMPLAINANT NO. 326 RAM DAS SAINI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 329MALKHAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 330KARAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 331RAI SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 332KARAN SINGH ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 333CHETRO DEVI ...
COMPLAINANT NO. 33418. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the case by as many as 335 complainants is not maintainable. He submitted that cause of action are different, dates of payment and dates of maturity are different and as such each complaint should have filed a separate complaint.
19. We are unable to locate substance in these arguments. Section 2(1)(b)(iv) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 permits the complainants to file such complaint and it runs as follows:-
complainant means-
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or [(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;]
20. Each consumer in this case has got the same interest. Consequently, this complaint is maintainable.
21. In the result we allow the complaints filed by those persons, which fall within the category (C) mentioned above. The amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till its recovery. Petitioners are also awarded litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 3 lakh. It must be borne in mind that the complainants were deprived of their hard-earned money for a period of more than two decades.
22. It has also come to our notice that some amount is already deposited. The said amount be paid to the decree holders proportionately. Single authorised person/complainant by all the complainants. Loan already received by the complainants from the OP from their FDRs shall be adjusted/deducted. The amount already deposited shall not carry interest because the same had already been deposited in the FDR. The FDR amount will be paid to the complainants. The Learned Registrar will calculate the amount as ordered by this Commission. He is at liberty to fix the date on Saturdays with the consent of the parties. His fee is fixed as Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the parties (Complainants and OP) in equal share.
...
(J. M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER PSM/