THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 628/2020
A.K.Ganesan (Senior Citizen 70 years)
S-3, 910, Brindavan, 11th Main, AGB Layout,
Chikbanavara Post Bangalore-560 090.
……….Appellant/s.
(In person)
-Versus-
1. CMD, DHFL,
Corporate Office, 10th Floor,
TCG Financial Centre,
BKC Road, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Vidyanagari Post,
Mumbai-400 098.
2. Branch In-Charge,
82, I Floor, Above IDBI Bank,
Dr. Rajkumar Road, II Block Rajaji Nagar,
Bangalore – 500 010.
Now at DHFL, No.13(Old No.5),
Near Kodava Samaja, Vasanh Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. Branch Head,
RR Investors Capital Services Pvt Ltd.,
S-111, Manipal Center,
47, Dickenson Road, Bangalore-560 042.
Karnataka.
……….. Respondent/s
(R1 & R2 By Shri/Smt S.Lakshminarayana, Advocate)
(R3 served – absent)
:ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:16/09/2020 passed by Bangalore Urban I Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.1802/2019, whereas in the order, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint as the Opposite Party had filed an application under Insolvency Act before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai and according to Section 14 of the Miscellaneous Act, there is no provision to file any suit or continuation of proceedings or execution of any decree against the Financial Service Provider is prohibited and given an opinion that this complainant has made a deposit of some amount before the Opposite Party/Company and also noted that some Depositors have preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding their claim. Therefore District Commission dismissed the complaint and directed by providing liberty to the complainant to approach the Administrator appointed by NCLT by submitting relevant documents to seek remedy. Hence, closed the complaint.
2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant is before this Commission.
3. We have heard the arguments.
4. The appellant had submitted that he is not a Creditor to the Company; he had deposited certain amount before the Opposite Party/Company; the Moratorium will not apply against him; hence, rejection of complaint filed under C.P. Act is against to the Rules and Regulations. Hence, submits to remand back the complaint for fresh trial.
5. We noticed here that complainant has deposited certain amount before the Opposite Party/company and after maturity he claimed for release of the amount, but the Company had preferred an application before the NCLT, Mumbai for Insolvency, for which they have appointed an Administrator to the Opposite Party/company, but the said petition is no nexus with the complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not returning the F.D. He is only a Depositor and not a Creditor, as such the complaint filed under C.P. Act is only an alternative remedy and is maintainable. The District Commission made an error in dismissing the complaint. Sec.14 of the Insolvency Act is not applicable to the complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:16/09/2020 passed by the Bangalore Urban I Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.1802/2019 is set-aside.
The matter is remanded back to the District Commission with a direction to restore the case in its original number and to dispose-of the matter afresh on merits after issuing notice to the Opposite Parties.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
