State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Omprakash Jain vs Shivani Gupta on 15 September, 2023
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No. 1630 / 2019.
Omprakash Jain,
Marketing Member,
Golden Forest India Limited Company,
R/o 72, Rama Apartment, Phalka Bazar,
Lashkar, Gwalior,
Present Address : 72, Tirupati Apartment,
In front of Bharat Talkies,
Shinde Ki Chhawani, Lashkar,
Gwalior (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Shivani Gupta d/o Jagdish Prasad Gupta & Smt. Neelam Gupta, w/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, R/o House of Seth Kanshiram, Khachcharam Ki Gali, Loha Mandi, Gwalior (M.P.).
2. Receiver, GIFL Main Building Golden Forests (India) Ltd. VPO Jharmart, VIA, Lalru Ambla Chandigarh National Highway 22, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab. .... RESPONDENTS.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER
Order
15.09.2023 Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Heard.
- 2-
This appeal arises out of the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.479 /2017 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondents / complainants and imposed the liability on the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.7,57,500/- with interest @7% p.a. from 14.9.2017 (date of filing of the complaint) till payment. The cost has ordered to be paid by the appellant as also by the respondent no.2 amounting to Rs.2000/- jointly and severally. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents / complainants had deposited amount of Rs.7500/- with the Golden Forests (India) Limited vide receipt, Ex.C-1 through the appellant who was acting as a marketing member for the sale of the certificates. A certificate to that effect was issued by Golden Forests (India) Limited, Ex.C-2. On maturity of the said certificate, a cheque dated 15.4.2017, Ex. C-3, for the maturity amount of Rs.7,57,500/- was issued by the Director of the Golden Forests (India) Limited in favour of the respondents - complainants. However, since the said cheque was dishonoured, the complainants had sent a legal notice, Ex. C-6 to B. Syal, Director, Golden Forests (India) Limited and also to the
- 3- appellant. The appellant had sent reply of the said notice on 3.7.2017 vide Ex. C-8 denying his liability.
3. When the matter stood thus, the respondents - complainants instead of pursuing the matter either before the Civil Court for recovery of amount or filing a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque, filed a complaint case before the District Commission alleging deficiency on the part of the appellant as also against Golden Forest India Limited and B. Syal, Director, Golden Forest India Limited.
4. During the pendency of the said complaint case, the respondents - complainants deleted names of Golden Forest India Limited, B. Syal, Director of Golden Forest India Limited and continued the matter against the appellant and against respondent no.2 after impleading respondent no.2.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was working only as an agent of the Golden Forest India Limited, who had received the money on maturity of the certificate the cheque was issued by the respondent no.1 for the maturity value therefore the matter ought to have been prosecuted by the respondents - complainants against them. The complainants having deleted the names of Golden Forest India Limited and B. Syal, Director, Golden Forest India Limited, the District Comission
- 4- ought to have dismissed the complaint or ought to have proceeded only against the Receiver / Liquidator appointed for the said Company. He also submits, when the cheque was already issued in regard to refund of the amount the appellant cannot in any circumstances held to be guilty of deficiency in service.
6. We have considered the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. On going through the record we find that the parties who had received the amount were initially made opposite parties, but subsequently their names have been deleted, may be because the Company was under
liquidation. However, the District Commission ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant, being agent. Our view finds support from Kundan Lal Sharma versus Col. H. S. Bhopare, 2002 CTJ 257 (CP) (NCDRC) and Central Bank of India versus Pravin Jagjivan, II (2002) CPJ 462.
8. In the circumstances, the impugned order imposing liability on the appellant of making payment of maturity amount deserves to be and is hereby set-aside, however, with liberty to the respondents - complainants to pursue the matter in accordance with law, if pending before the respondent no.2 / competent aurhority.
- 5-
9. The appeal is disposed of.
10. No orders as to the costs.
(Justice Shantanu Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke