Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.06.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay missing FDR amount i.e. Rs. 25,000/- with interest till realization.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,68,673/- of interest after 2005 – 2006 on the FDR as the matured value is paid only and further interest should also be added till realization which may be except Rs. 2,68,673/-.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as Compensation.
4. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 70,000/- as expenses incurred during the visit at Delhi in 2008 and on correspondence.
5. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

It is the case of the complainant that complainant no. 1 had invested Rs. 2,95,000/- by way of fixed deposit while complainant no. 2 had invested Rs. 1,30,000/- with the opposite party company. Thus both complainants have made total investment with opposite parties as Rs. 4,25,000/- through FDs. Complainant no. 3 is the nominee of complainant no. 1 and 2. The detail of the total investment as fixed deposit by both complainants were 17 ( seventeen) in numbers in different amounts, the details of which have been given in Para – 4 of complaint petition. At the time of investment, the local office of the opposite parties was situated at 415, Jagat Trade Center, Exhibition Road, Patna but after receiving the Fds the local office of the company was closed and they shifted to Delhi with intention to harass the complainant.

It is further case of the complainant that after over whelming pressure from investors, opposite parties filed a petition bearing no. 126 of 2006 in Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Court have been pleased to pass an order on 24.05.2006 whereby and where under a hardship committee was constituted for paying the total maturity value i.e. principle amount and interest after receiving the fixed deposit receipt towards full and final settlement of the liability etc. of Escort Finance Ltd. and EFL was entitled to obtain final discharge certificate from the FD holders in terms of the Hon’ble Court order. The complainant had already sent the fulfilled discharged certificate of FDR excluding one disputed FDR which cannot be sent due to missing by opposite party ( annexure – B).

The complainants have further asserted that one FD of maturity amount of Rs. 27,131/-, which was in the name of complainant no. 1 has not been received by the complainant causing mental tension. The complainant has asserted that they have sent several letters regarding non – payment of aforesaid FDR and also wrote a letter in this regard but opposite party did not pay the aforesaid amount as recommended by hardship committee ( vide annexure – C, D and E ).

Complainant has also stated that the complainant have genuine claim to receive the interest etc. upto 16.12.2011 because payments were made on that day.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement has been filed stating therein that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. In Para – 2 of aforesaid written statement the following facts have been asserted, “that it is relevant to mention here that the complaint petition no. 162/06 and Co. Appl. No. 1198, 1221/07, 132,345,983/2008,20,49,56 and 1044/2009 was filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against Escorts Finance Ltd. In the said case, status report has been filed by the company on 21^st may 2010. Pursuant to the order passed by Court on the 13^th May 2010 in terms of this report as suggested by all council present on the previous hearing. A proposal has been put up by the hardship committee inter area with a view to the final discharge of all the depositor dues. In the scheme which was earlier propounded by the company. It was proposed that 75% of maturity value would be given to the fix deposit holder in discharge of the claims and about 85% of the fixed deposit holder at accepted that scheme (vide annexure – 1).”

It has been further stated in Para – 3 of written statement by opposite parties that company paid the maturity amount as mentioned in receipt to the complainant and the complainant have accepted the same without protest and hence the opposite parties have totally discharged their obligation mentioned above as will appear from several discharge certificate by way of annexure – 2 of the written statement.

On behalf of complainant a rejoinder cum written argument has been filed repeating the same fact as stated in the complaint petition. It has been stated that after sending the 16 ( sixteen) FDR excluding one missing FDR payment could not be made in due time and one missing FDR bearing no. ZE0Z/CD04013673 has not been still paid by opposite parties which comes to Rs. 27,131/- till March 2006.

On behalf of complainant another petition of rejoinder with affidavit has been filed stating therein that the opposite parties have erroneously stated that payment of Rs. 27,131/- was made by DD dated 02.12.2011 while the fact is that after meeting with Vinod Dixit on 23.08.2011 in office at Faridabad he told that payment could only be made in case we submit discharge certificate with relevant documents and despite sending the indemnity bond the aforesaid amount has not been paid.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is admitted case that as per recommendation of hardship committee and the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court the complainants out of 17 (seventeen) FDR have received 16(sixteen) FDR. As per complainants the amount of one FDR i.e. FDR ZE0Z/CD04013673 had not been paid to the them while the opposite parties in Para – 3 of their written statement have stated that they have discharged all the liabilities of the complainants.

It goes without saying that payment has been made by the company as per direction of Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was based on report of the hardship committee. Hence, if the complainants have any grievance they should have filed appropriate application either before Hardship Committee or before Hon’ble High Court.

In our opinion in such a matter this forum has no role to play.

We therefore find and hold that in view of facts and discussion made above this complaint is not maintainable before us and as such we have not discussed the merit of the case.

However, the complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate Court/committee for redressal of their grievance.

Thus, this complaint stands dismissed for not being maintainable with the aforementioned observation.

                                   Member                                                                                   President