State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maiva Singh Son Of Harbhajan Singh vs Santosh Kumari Wife Of Balbir Singh on 27 February, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007
Date of institution : 24.9.2007
Date of Decision : 27.2.2012
Maiva Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, C/o Jhandu Industrial Corporation,
Opposite Deepak Cinema, Ludhiana.
....Appellant.
Versus
Santosh Kumari wife of Balbir Singh R/o B-IV-2198, Partap Bazar, Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 23.7.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. A.S. Gill, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This order will dispose of following five appeals:-
S. First Appeal No. Parties Name Date of
No. Decision
1. 1306 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Santosh Kumari 23.7.2007
2. 1307 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Miss Niharika through Sunil 23.7.2007
Kumar
3. 1308 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar & Balbir Singh 23.7.2007
4. 1309 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Balbir Singh 23.7.2007
5. 1310 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar & Kanchan 23.7.2007
The above mentioned appeals are preferred against the order dated 23.7.2007 by which the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called 'the District Forum') has accepted all the complaints. All the above appeals are being disposed of with a single order as the dispute in all the appeals is same. Facts are First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 2 same and the question of law involved is also the same. The main facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had deposited Rs. 25,000/- vide receipt No. 1031 dated 25.7.1995 on interest @ 14% per annum on its maturity dated 24.1.1999 with the appellant Co. M/s Bachan Auto Hire Purchase (P) Ltd., Motor and General Financiers, 1st Floor, Diamond Complex, Main Bus Stand, Ludhiana through its Directors Lal Singh and Maiva Singh. It was assured that the maturity amount will be paid by the opposite parties in complaint to the respondent/complainant after deducting the income tax but on maturity, did not pay the amount despite repeated requests of the respondent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties made verbal promises for the payment of the amount on different dates but neither any payment was made nor any document was executed for the payment of the maturity amount. The Directors of the firm were also doing the business regularly and accepting the amount from the depositors giving the false assurances. It was also pleaded by the complainant that one year prior to filing the complaint that Lal Singh one of the Director was shifted to Barelley and the business was being run through 2-3 employees. The Directors after collecting huge amount of crores from the depositors; had purchased immovable properties as benami in Uttar Pradesh and also expanded their family transport business. The licence of the Company was also not renewed. The opposite parties were deficient in service and not refunding the maturity amount as per promise is also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The respondent had suffered mental tension, pain, agony and harassment due to the act of the opposite parties. The complaint was filed and it was prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to refund First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 3 the maturity amount alongwith interest and also pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellant i.e. only Maiva Singh replied by taking preliminary objections that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint on the point of fraud, which requires elaborate evidence and the proceedings before the District Forum are summary in nature. On merits, it was pleaded by the appellant that he had resigned as Director of the company on 8.12.1993 and submitted Form No. 32 to the Registrar of the Companies, Jalandhar and as such, he was not liable for the affairs of the Company after 8.12.1993. It was pleaded that Lal Singh, Director of the company in a deceitful and fraudulent manner submitted Form No. 32 i.e. Annual Returns from 1995 to 1998 with the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar on 25.8.1999 under the signatures of the appellant showing him as Additional Director of the firm. FIR No. 259 dated 24.11.2000 was registered under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC at P.S. Civil Lines, Ludhiana on the basis that appellant's signatures on annual returns for the year 1995-96, 1997 and 1998 were forged one and he had never signed such documents. The Investigating Agency got the Specimen Signatures and Hand Writing of the appellant and sent the same for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and it was concluded in its opinion dated 9.6.2003 that Q.17 and Q.18 i.e. annual returns were not signed by the appellant. It was pleaded that opposite party No. 1-Lal Singh before the District Forum had committed fraud with the appellant and to decide this point, elaborate evidence was required. The appellant had purchased certain share of the Company under the understanding that the entire responsibility for the conduct/activities and business of the company will be of Lal Singh, Director and in this regard resolution Ex. R-6 dated 3.2.1989 was passed in the meeting of the Board First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 4 of Directors. Through this resolution it was clearly stated that Lal Singh was individually authorized to sign or to accept all the cheques, bill or exchange promissory notes and other orders on behalf of the Company. As such, the appellant was just a symbolic Director and was not responsible for the day to day activities of the Company. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and the appellant and other opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant/respondent with interest @ 14% per annum w.e.f. 25.7.95 i.e. the day when the amount was deposited till its refund. It was also ordered that if any amount of interest had already been paid, the same will be deducted at the time of making the payment.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The appeal is filed by the appellant Maiva Singh on the grounds that the appellant had resigned as Director of the company on 8.12.1993 but this fact was not considered by the District Forum at the time of passing the impugned order and even the order is against the report of the Forensic Science, Laboratory, Punjab by which it was proved that the returns were filed by Lal Singh on behalf of the company after forging the signatures of the appellant after 1993, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside qua the appellant.
8. In the complaint, Lal Singh was also impleaded as Director of the firm but he did not appear in the complaint before the District Forum and he was proceeded against ex-parte and the District Forum also First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 5 passed the order under appeal against said Lal Singh. But for the reasons best known to the appellant; Lal Singh was not impleaded as party in the appeal and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of not impleading the necessary party i.e. Lal Singh, who was party in the complaint and only he could explain whether the appellant had resigned as Director on 8.12.1993 or he remained as a Director of the Company and at the time of receipt of the amounts in dispute in all the appeals, he was functioning on behalf of the company or not? The appeals of the appellant are liable to be dismissed only on this score.
9. The appellant neither in reply nor in the grounds of appeal had denied the version of the respondent that she had deposited Rs. 25,000/- with the Company with interest @ 14%. The version of the appellant is only that he was not the Director of the Company at the time of depositing the amount in dispute by the respondent with the Company, as such, he is not liable to pay the same with interest @ 14%.
10. The version of the appellant is that Lal Singh the other Director had fraudulently submitted Form No. 32 i.e. Annual Returns for the year 1995 to 1998 after forging the signature of the appellant under the returns and an FIR No. 259 dated 24.11.2000 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC at P.S. Civil Lines, Ludhiana was registered. The admitted signature of the appellant and signature on the returns for the years 1995 to 1998 were sent by the police to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh for the comparison and on examination, it was found that the signatures upon the annual returns which were submitted by Lal Singh in the office of Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar were forged one.
11. To prove his resignation from the Directorship, the appellant had tendered into evidence photostat copy of Form No. 32 (Ex. R-1) of the First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 6 Registrar of Companies in which in column No. 5, it is mentioned that Maiva Singh had resigned as Director w.e.f. 8.12.1993 and his resignation was accepted by the Board of Directors vide meeting held on 8.12.1993. But the appellant himself also tendered into evidence copies of the Forms No. 32 Exs. R-7, R-8, R-9 and Ex. R-10, which shows that the appellant was appointed as an Additional Director of the Company till the conclusion of next and general meeting of the Company on 29.9.1994, 29.9.1995, 29.9.1997 and on 30.11.1998, he resigned from the Directorship and his resignation was accepted by the Board of Director's in its meeting dated 30.11.1998 and Sh. Rakesh Saxena s/o Munshi Lal Saxena was appointed as Additional Director of the company. But the appellant had not summoned the record of the Registrar of Companies to prove that the entries in Form Nos. 32 for the above years were not correct and the same were forged one. Even the record of the company was also not summoned and produced by the appellant to prove his version. Only the affidavit of the appellant in his favour is not sufficient evidence to prove his version and to rebut the version of the respondent/complainant.
12. The appellant had tendered into evidence the photostat copy of the report of Assistant Director, Forensic Science, Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh (Ex. R-4) to prove his version that the signatures on the returns for the year 1995 to 1998 were forged one.
13. We have perused the photostat copy of the report of the Laboratory. This report was regarding two disputed documents Q-17 and Q-18. But no affidavit of the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab was tendered in evidence by the appellant to prove his version nor he was summoned to prove the report that the signature of the appellant were forged by Lal Singh. Even the Investigator of the criminal case was not examined by the appellant to prove his version that his First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 7 signature was forged by Lal Singh. There is also no evidence, what were the documents Q-17 and Q-18 and from whose record the same were taken into custody by the Police and in whose presence the admitted signature of Maiva Singh appellant were taken to compare with the disputed signatures on the returns in dispute. Even no photographs of the disputed signatures and admitted signature were produced by the appellant to prove his version.
14. The respondent/complainant also tendered into evidence photostat copies of Forms No. 32 of the Registrar of Companies Act Ex. CA-1 to Ex. CA-5 to prove her version that the appellant remained as Additional Director of the Company from 31.12.1993 till 29.9.1997 when the amount in dispute was deposited by the respondent/complainant with the company.
15. An application for direction to Maiva Singh, Director of opposite party Bachan Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. which is at page No. 102 of the District Forum file; to place on the file the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh bearing No. 2/2003/S/Doc/FSL/Pb dated 3.1.2003. It was pleaded in the application that the said report was given by the Forensic Science Laboratory after obtaining the signature of Maiva Singh in the Court and comparing the same with the signature which were on the annual returns in dispute.
16. But in reply to the above application, in para No. 4 it was pleaded by the appellant that report dated 3.1.2003 was regarding the document which were not disputed and the said report was totally irrelevant, unnecessary and had been obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh just to create evidence against the appellant. Not producing the same, the presumption goes against the appellant that the appellant had willfully concealed the evidence which was First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 8 against him. If the same was not relevant then what was the difficulty for not producing the same by the appellant in the Court.
First Appeal No. 1307 of 2007
17. In this case, Miss Niharika(minor)-complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 30,000/- with M/s Bachan Auto Hire Purchase (P) Limited (Motor & General Financiers) vide receipt No. 1427 dated 1.1.1996 and the Company had assured the refund of the amount with interest @ 14% per annum on maturity i.e. 31.12.1998 but the Company did not refund the maturity amount with interest.
First Appeal No. 1308 of 2007
18. In this case, Sunil Kumar and Balbir Singh-complainants had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- with M/s Bachan Auto Hire Purchase (P) Limited (Motor & General Financiers) vide receipt No. 2082 dated 17.12.1996 and the Company had assured the refund of the amount with interest @ 16% per annum on maturity i.e. 31.3.1999 but the Company did not refund the maturity amount with interest. First Appeal No. 1309 of 2007
19. In this case, complainants-Balbir Singh, Santosh Kumari and Sunil Kumar had deposited different amounts with M/s Bachan Auto Hire Purchase (P) Limited (Motor & General Financiers). Balbir Singh had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide receipt No. 1032 dated 25.7.1995 with maturity date 24.1.1999, Mrs. Santosh Kumari had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- vide receipt No. 1031 dated 25.7.1995 with maturity date 24.1.1999 and Sh. Balbir Singh & Sh. Sunil Kumar jointly deposited Rs. 1,20,000/- vide receipt No. 2082 dated 17.12.1996 with monthly interest, which was paid upto March, 1999. The Company had assured the refund of the amount with interest @ 14% per annum but it did not refund the maturity amount with interest. First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 9 First Appeal No. 1310 of 2007
20. In this case, complainants- Sunil Kumar, Kanchan and Miss. Niharika had deposited different amounts with M/s Bachan Auto Hire Purchase (P) Limited (Motor & General Financiers). Sh. Sunil Kumar had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- vide receipt No. 976 dated 2.6.1995 with maturity date 1.1.1999, Mrs. Kanchan had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- vide receipt No. 1559 dated 14.8.1996 with maturity date 12.2.2000 and Miss. Niharika had deposited Rs. 30,000/- vide receipt No. 1427 dated 1.1.1996 with maturity date 31.12.1998. The Company had assured the refund of the amount with interest @ 14% per annum but it did not refund the maturity amount with interest.
21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the orders under appeals are legal and valid and there is no infirmity in the same. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned orders and the same are affirmed and upheld. The appeals being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- each.
22. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 17.2.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
23. The appellant in F.A. No. 1306 of 2007 had deposited an amount of Rs. 12,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 12,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent-Santosh Kumari by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as other opposite parties to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
24. The appellant in F.A. No. 1307 of 2007 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 10 appeal. This amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent-Miss Niharika by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as other opposite parties to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
25. The appellant in F.A. No. 1308 of 2007 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents in equal share by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as other opposite parties to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
26. The appellant in F.A. No. 1309 of 2007 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent-Balbir Singh by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as other opposite parties to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
27. The appellant in F.A. No. 1310 of 2007 had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents in equal share by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount shall First Appeal No. 1306 of 2007 11 be paid by the appellant as well as other opposite parties to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
28. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
29. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal Nos.:-
1. 1307 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Miss Niharika through Sunil Kumar
2. 1308 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar & Balbir Singh
3. 1309 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Balbir Singh
4. 1310 of 2007 Maiva Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar & Kanchan (Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member February 27, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg) as Member