State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Managing Director, M/S Nicco Uco ... vs Sri Barid Behari Chowdhury on 18 February, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/1247/2013 (Arising out of order dated 24/10/13 in Case No.CC/565/2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II) DATE OF FILING:21/11/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:18/02/14 APPELLANT : Managing Director M/s NICCO UCO Alliance Credit Ltd. Nicco House, 2nd Floor 2, Hare Street, P.S. Hare Street Kolkata-700 001 Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri Sudip Bhowmick RESPONDENT : Sri Barid Behari Chowdhury 55, Kabi Nabin Sen Road 1st Floor, P.S. Dum Dum Kolkata-700 028 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Tarapada Gangopadhyay FOR THE APPELLANT : Mrs. Mousumi Chakraborty Ld. Advocate Mr. Partha Chakraborty Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : In person ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in CC 565 of 2009 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund the sum of Rs.33,750/- with interest @ 10% since 15/09/03. The OP was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.34,000/- in lieu of interest and also for harassing the Complainant and for adopting unfair trade practice by the OP. The OP was further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as punitive damages to be deposited with the SCWF. The OP was directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of the order failing which the OP will have to pay Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the Complainant deposited Rs.45,000/- with the OP as fixed deposit on condition to get monthly interest @ 10% p.a. The date of deposit was 15/07/03 and the date of maturity was 14/07/06.
Initially the OP paid some monthly interest @ Rs.375/-, but subsequently stopped paying the interest. The Complainant requested the OP several times, but to no effect. The Complainant surrendered the original FDR to the OP Company on 04/05/06 which was acknowledged by the OP. The OP Company paid Rs.11,250/- only on 01/09/06 being part payment of the principal amount. The Complainant wrote several letters to different Authorities, but to no effect.
For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Complainant paid some amount of interest but could not pay the rest of the amount because of the financial crisis of the company. It is contended that the Appellant moved the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and in connection with Company Application No.93 of 2008 the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta was pleased to restrain the fixed deposit holders from initiating any proceedings and/or taking any steps in any manner against the Appellant Company and the existing proceedings would remain stayed till the disposal of the application seeking sanction of the scheme of arrangement proposed before the Honble Court. It is submitted that the Appellant Company will make payment according to the scheme to be framed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions of this Commission in connection with FA 39 of 2010 and RC 64 of 2011.
The Respondent in person has submitted that he has been suffering from different ailments and is in need of fund. It is submitted that he is being harassed since 2003 and the Appellant Company is not making refund of the principal sum deposited by him. It is submitted that the Learned District Forum granted several times to the Appellant Company but none appeared on behalf of the company before the Learned District Forum.
We have heard the submission made by both sides.
Admittedly, the Complainant deposited Rs.45,000/- with the Appellant Company and on some occasions the Appellant paid the interest, but subsequently stopped paying interest which led the Respondent to file the complaint before the Learned District Forum. It appears from the annexures to the BNA filed by the Appellant that Company Application No.93 of 2008 was filed by the Appellant Company before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta wherein an order of injunction has been passed. It further appears that in FA No.397 of 2010 the appeal was allowed setting aside the impugned order with the direction that the complaint case would be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the said Company Application No.93 of 2008 before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. Similar order was passed in RC No.64 of 2011 wherein it was directed that the execution case shall remain stayed till the disposal of the Company Application No.93 of 2008. In view of the previous orders passed in the other cases under similar circumstances, we are inclined to pass the same order in the instant appeal.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. It is directed that the complaint case bearing no.565 of 2009 will remain stayed till the disposal of the Company Application No.93 of 2008 before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT