Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.     Section 3 and 4 of the MPID Act read as under:

"3.    Fraudulent default by Financial Establishment - Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity along with any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such Financial Establishment also shall be liable for a fine which may extend to one lac of rupees.
10.   Considering the definition of 'deposit' given in Section 2(c) and definition of 'Financial Establishment' given in Section 2(d) of MPID Act, coupled with Sections 3 and 4 thereof it can hardly be disputed that the deficiencies attributed to the opposite party constitutes fraudulent default by a Financial Establishment within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and therefore, if the allegations made in the complaint are proved during trial, the opposite party is liable to be convicted and punished by the designated court in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Act.  The question which comes up for our consideration is as to whether the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act.
11.   It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainants that since the consumer forum is not a court, the provisions of Section 6(2) of the MPID Act are not applicable to such forum.  It is also submitted that the remedy provided before a consumer forum is a civil remedy in a case where the fraudulent default, as defined in MPID Act, also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider, whereas MPID Act provides for criminal prosecution and punishment of the persons indulging in such fraudulent defaults.  It is also pointed out on behalf of the complainants that the designated court constituted under the provisions of MPID Act, has no power to grant compensation which a consumer forum can grant in a case of deficiency in the services rendered to a consumer.
 

13.   It would be seen from a perusal of the provisions contained in MPID Act that the designated court has no power to grant compensation to a person who is a victim of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment.  Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the said MPID Act provides an adequate redressal of the grievances of a person who suffers on account of the fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment, where such defaults also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider to its consumer.  We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy; whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy available to the victim of a fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment.