THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

R.B.T.No.1561 of 2008

In Appeal No.997 of 2002

Sh. Om Parkash Pathania, Q.No.12-C,. Raiolway Colony, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamunanagar.

                                                                                    ..…Appellant

V e r s u s

1.      Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Limited, Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamunanagar through its Managing Director.

2.      Golden Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Co. Ltd., Opposite Waryam Singh Hospital, Yamuna Nagar now merged into Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Limited, Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamunanagar through its Managing Director.

3.      Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Co. Ltd., Opposite Waryam Singh Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Firstly merged into Respondent No.2 which finally merged into Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Limited, Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamunanagar through its Managing Director.

---Respondents

BEFORE:            Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal, President.

                        Hon’ble Maj. Gen. S. P. Kapoor (Retd.), Member

Hon’ble Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member.

Present:          Sh. Om Parkash Pathania, appellant in person.

                        None for the respondents.

Maj. Gen. S. P. Kapoor (retd), Member

1.                     This is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 18.2.2002 passed in complaint case No.76 of 1998 : Sh. Om Parkash Pathania Vs. Golden Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Company Limited and another.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that after going through the advertisement published by OP No.2 inviting investments from general public, the complainant deposited  a sum of Rs.7,000/- on 17.10.1993 and OP No.2 issued a receipt No.000255, Certificate No.3585/01 with date of its commencement as 17.10.1993, which was for a period of four years. As per the complainant, the amount, which was to be paid on maturity on 17.10.1997, was Rs.14,000/-. It was averred that Smt. Aruna Pathania was made the nominee of the complainant in the said deposit. It was next averred by the complainant that OP No.2 collected the amount from him at Yamunagar and the receipt/certificate was also issued at Yamunagar but later on, after some months, OP No.2 got merged with OP No.1, who undertook all the rights and liabilities of OP No.2. The complainant, it was next averred, on the date of maturity i.e. 17.10.1997 visited the office of OP No.1 and requested it to pay the maturity amount but OP No.1 delayed the matter, on one pretext or the other and did not release the maturity amount of Rs.14,000/-. Alleging non release of maturity value of Rs.14,000/- by the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the complainant had filed complaint before the learned District Forum seeking direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.14,000/- along with interest @18% w.e.f. 17.10.1997 till the date of actual payment besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and litigation costs.

3.                     The version of Golden Dharti Investment and Finance Limited (mentioned as Golden Dharti Hire Purchase and Leasing Company Limited in the array of OPs) is that it was not a party to the complaint and the summons had been wrongly served upon this company under ordinary post. It was stated that previously a company by the name of OP No.2 i.e. Dharti Hire-Purchase & Leasing Company Limited had its Branch Office at Yamunanagar but the same was closed in the year 1994. Pleading that the averments and allegations made in the complaint did not relate to it and since, there was no relation of consumer and provider of service between it and the complainant, Golden Dharti Investment and Finance Limited prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, has recorded in the impugned order that there was no relation of consumer and Service Provider between the complainant and the OPs because the complainant had already filed an application for amendment of the complaint by deleting the name of OP No.1 and adding the new name of OP in its place. It was next recorded in the impugned order that OP No.2 had already been left by the complainant on 25.1.1999 and as such, in the view of learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs was not maintainable. Finding the complaint not maintainable, the learned District Forum dismissed the same.

5.                     Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the complainant had filed the present complaint before Haryana State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon’ble National Commission. Sh. Om Parkash Pathania, appellant (complainant) appeared in person. Sh. G. I. Sharma, Advocate had appeared on 22.2.2010 on behalf of respondents (OPs) and sought an adjournment, which was allowed subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant. But subsequently, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and the costs imposed vide zimini order dated 22.2.2010 is still to be paid by the respondents (OPs) to the appellant (complainant).

6.                     We have gone through the documents on file and have also heard the complainant in person whose main contention is that his hard earned money be got refunded to him along with due interest. A perusal of the documents indicates that the complainant admittedly gave an amount of Rs.7,000/- to OP No.2 – Dharti Hire-Purchase & Leasing Co. Ltd., 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, which company admittedly closed down in the year 1994. As per the complainant, all liabilities and assets of this company had been taken over by OP No.1 whereas reply filed by Golden Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Company Limited is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the complaint or the complainant who never visited its office. From a perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the location of OPs No.1 and 2 is the same i.e. Opposite Waryam Singh Hospital, Yamunanagar whereas it is seen that in the impugned order, the address of both OPs No.1 and 2 has been stated as 40,  Block-A, Subhash Nagar, Yamunanagar. It is not clear from the documents on file as to why this change in address of OPs took place. Thus from the reading of whatever documents are available on file, it becomes clear that at the stage of service to the proper parties by the learned District Forum, Yamunanagar, notice have not been served at the right address to the correct parties. Furthermore, there is nothing on record as evidence for us to believe that the liability and assets of OP No.2 have been taken over by Golden Dharti Investment and Finance Limited, which had been served in the complaint case and which has filed its written statement. We are of the considered view that this anomaly with regard to service having been effected on a wrong party should have been rectified at the stage when the complaint was before the learned District Forum but unfortunately, without addressing this issue, the learned Distrift Forum has dismissed the complaint as being not maintainable. In view of the circumstances narrated above, we have nothing on record, placed by the appellant, to prove that the correct party had been served and that it had taken over the assets and liabilities of OP No.2.

7.                     In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed as no evidence has been produced by the appellant to establish the relationship of consumer and service provider between him and the party, which had been served by the learned District Forum. Thus, the impugned order is upheld. However, the complainant is given the liberty to again approach the learned District Forum by impleading proper parties giving their correct addresses and it is directed that the period spent in litigation before the Consumer Forum in the present case and the State Commission in appeal will not be counted towards calculation of the period of limitation for filing a fresh complaint. Under the peculiar circumstance of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

8.                     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced

6^th May 2010.

                     [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)]

MEMBER

                                                                                            [MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-