Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

V.S.C.K. Financiers & 2 Ors / Applts vs N.Balasubramanian & 3 Ors on 27 March, 2008

  
 
 
 
 
 
 CORRECTED ON :                          
  
 
 
 
 







 



 

   

 

BEFORE THE STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI 

 

  

 

Present : Hon'ble
Thiru Justice K.SAMPATH PRESIDENT 

 

 Thiru
Pon. GUNASEKARAN, B.A., B.L., MEMBER-I 

 

  

 

F.A. Nos. 5 to
8/2006 

 

[ Against OP No.41 to 44/2003 on the file
of the DCDRF,   Coimbatore ] 

 

  

 

DATED THIS THE TWENTY
SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 

 

  

 

1. V.S.C.K. Financiers 

 

   Mettupalayam Road, 

 

 Thoppampatti
Pirivu 

 

 Vadamadurai,
  Coimbatore :17. 

 

  

 

2. S.Parimalam,
W/o Selvaraj 

 

 # 7 Chitra Nagar 

 

 Thoppampatti
Pirivu 

 

 Vadamadurai,
  Coimbatore :17. [  In  All Appeals ] 

 

  

 

3. Lalitha, W/o P.C.Shanmugam :: Appellants/
Opp. Parties 

 

   # 1/38, Vinayakar
  Koil Street, rep.
by Adv. 

 

 Thudiyalur,   Coimbatore : 34. Mr.S.Natarajan 

 

  

 

  

 

Vs. 

 

  

 

N.Balasubramanian, 

 

S/o Narayanasamy Iyer [  In  FA 5/2006 ] 

 

D.No.96,
Dr.Daniel Nagar :: Respdt/Complainant 

 

Thoppampatti Pirivu rep.
by Adv. 

 

K.Vadamadurai Post Mr.V.Nicholas 

 

  Coimbatore : 17. 

 

  

 

B.Jayalakshmi, S/o N.Balasubramanian :: [  In FA 6/2006 ] 

 

D.No.96,
Dr.Daniel Nagar Respdt/Complainant 

 

Thoppampatti Pirivu 
 rep. by Adv. 

 

K.Vadamadurai Post,   Coimbatore : 17. Mr.V.Nicholas 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

Venkatasubramanian, S/o N.Subramanian :: [  In FA 7/2006
] 

 

D.No.96,
Dr.Daniel Nagar Respdt/Complainant 

 

Thoppampatti Pirivu 
 rep. by Adv. 

 

K.Vadamadurai Post,   Coimbatore : 17. Mr.V.Nicholas 

 

  

 

Ranganathan, S/o Kandasamy Naidu :: [
 In FA 8/2006 ] 

 

D.No.64,
Dr.Daniel Nagar Respdt/Complainant 

 

Thoppampatti Pirivu 
 rep. by Adv. 

 

K.Vadamadurai Post,   Coimbatore : 17. Mr.V.Nicholas 

 

  

 

 O R D E R 

K.SAMPATH J . { Open Court}   These appeals involve a common question. The opposite parties are one and the same in all these matters though the complainants are different. The appeals are disposed of by the following order. The complainants in the individual complaints had filed Execution Petitions against the opposite parties for execution of the orders passed in the complaint filed by them in COP Nos.41, 42, 43 & 44 of 2003. The Opposite parties were directed to pay the respective complainants various amounts and since the opposite parties did not comply with the order in the main complaints, execution was levied by the respective complainants.

 

2. The opposite parties contended that they were not able to mobilise the amounts to be deposited for filing the appeals within the stipulated time and hence the appeals were rejected ; that the Government had made attachment against all their properties to protect the interest of the deposit holders as there were cases filed before the TNPID Court, Chennai and the special Court passed orders for attachment of the borrowers properties for the recovery of dues to the Firm with the opposite parties to settle the amount to the deposit holders and that they should have deemed to settled the matter.

 

3. The District Forum after giving a fair opportunity to the opposite parties, by order dated 14/11/2005 in individual cases, directed the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants for arrest and production of the opposite parties before the District Forum to punish them under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

It is as against the said orders these appeals have been filed.

 

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties/ appellants submitted that the matters were pending before the Special Court and that the District Forum ought to have directed the complainants/ decree holders to go before the Special Court and seek remedy.

 

5. We do not agree. Even after two years of passing of the order by the District Forum in the main complaints, the opposite parties had not done anything to settle the claim of the complainants in the various complaints. The mere fact that there were matters pending before any other Court would not suffice.

The opposite parties having suffered orders in the complaints, were bound to pay the amounts due to the various complainants. This they have not done even after the lapse of several years and the District Forum, in our view, rightly directed their arrest and no interference is called for.

The appeals fail and are dismissed.

     
Pon.GUNASEKARAN     K.SAMPATH 

 

 MEMBER-I   PRESIDENT 

 

  

 

INDEX
:
YES / NO