STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 998 of 2002 | RBT/First Appeal No. | : | 07 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 16.05.2002/ 13.01.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 01.12.2011 |
1.Sh.Bachan Singh, S/o Late Sohan Sigh, R/o H.No.1092, Guru Arjun Nagar, Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, Pin code - 135001 2.S.Jagtar Singh, S/o Late Sohan Sigh, R/o H.No.96/3, Yamuna Vihar, Near City Palace, Yamunanagar, Pin code – 135001 [LRs substituted in place of Surjit Kaur (now deceased), as appellants, vide order dated 30.05.2011]. ……Appellants V e r s u s 1.Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd. Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director. 2.Golden Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Co. Ltd. 40, Block A, Subash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar now merged into Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd., Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director. 3.Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Co. Ltd. 40 Block A, Subash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar firstly merged into Respondent No.2 which finally merged into Respondent No.2 i.e. Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd. Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for the appellants. Respondents No.1 to 3 already ex-parte. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. The instant appeal, was originally filed by Smt. Surjit Kaur, appellant/complainant (now deceased), who died during the pendency thereof, and according Section 13(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called at the Act only), her legal heirs (appellant nos.1 and 2), were brought, on record, in her place. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2002, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant, Surjit Kaur (now deceased). 3. The facts, in brief, are that Surjit Kaur, paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-, on 10.10.1993, to respondent no.3/OP-2, which issued a certificate. The said certificate was to mature after a period of 4 years. On maturity i.e. on 10.10.1997, the complainant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000 However, respondent no.3/OP-2, merged with respondent no.2/OP-1. When the complainant approached respondent no.2/OP-1, for the payment of amount due, on maturity of the certificate, aforesaid, it delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Since the amount was not paid to her, on maturity of the certificate, a legal notice was issued by her, to the OPs, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, was filed. 4. On notice to the OPs, who are respondent nos. 2 and 3, in the instant appeal, respondent no.1, put in appearance and filed reply, that it was not a party to the complaint, and the summons had been wrongly served upon it. It was admitted in the reply, that earlier respondent no.2/OP-1, had its Branch Office in the premises, where respondent no.1, was having its office. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong, on account of the reason that respondent no.1, had no concern with the matter, in question. 5. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application for the amendment of head note of the complaint, stating therein that, in the heading of the complaint, the name of OP no.1 had been mentioned as Golden Dharti Hire Purchase & Leasing Co. Ltd. 40, Block A, Subash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, which had merged with Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd., Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. It was stated that instead of OP-1, Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd. Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director, be impleaded as a party. 6. Notice of this application was issued to Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd., respondent no.1, which opposed the same. 7. The said application was also dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2002, on which date the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against both the orders one dated 18.03.2002, passed in the main complaint, and the other of the even date, passed on the application for amendment, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/complainant. 9. As stated above, during the pendency of appeal, Surjit Kaur, original appellant/complainant, died and her legal representatives, were substituted in her place. 10. During the pendency of appeal, vide order dated 02.08.2011, the request of the Counsel for the appellants, that Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd. Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director, be arrayed as respondent no.1, in the present appeal, was allowed. 11. Notice to the respondents was issued, but despite service, they were not present and, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 12. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 13. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that originally, the amount was deposited with respondent no.3/OP-2 and before the arrival of the maturity date, it (respondent no.3/OP-2), merged with respondent no.2/OP-1. He further submitted that thereafter respondent no.2/OP-1, merged with respondent no.1, newly added party, in the appeal. He further submitted that since the amount was deposited and the certificate, copy whereof is at page 37 of the District Forum file, was issued, it was the duty of respondent no.1, to return the same on maturity but it failed to do. He further submitted that respondent no.1, was deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that the appellants were caused a lot of physical harassment and mental agony, on account of non- payment of the amount, at the time of maturity. He further submitted that the District Forum, was, thus, wrong in dismissing the complaint, as also, the application for amendment. 14. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted and the complaint, deserves to be remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh decision, according to law. The amount was deposited with respondent no.3/OP-2, and the certificate, referred to above, was issued, in favour of Surjit Kaur (now deceased), but before the date of maturity i.e. 10.10.1997, respondent no.3/OP-2 merged with respondent no.2/OP-1. Again respondent no.2/OP-1, merged with respondent no. 1, a newly added party, in the appeal. Since, respondent no.1, was not impleaded, as a party by the District Forum, and the application, filed by the complainant, for this purpose was dismissed, vide order dated 18.03.2002, the date, when the main complaint was dismissed, the appellants had no other alternative than to challenge both the orders in the appeal. Respondent no.1, a newly added party, in the appeal, was not afforded an opportunity, to file written reply, and lead evidence, in support of its case. It is well settled principle of law, that all the parties, to the dispute, are required to be given an opportunity of furnishing their version, by way of reply, and lead evidence, by way of affidavits, keeping in view, the principles of natural justice. No party thus, can be condemned unheard. The order date 18.03.2002, passed in the complaint, and the order of the even date, passed, in the application, for amendment, are thus liable to be set aside. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned orders dated 18.03.2002, referred to above, are set aside, and the complaint is remanded back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, for fresh decision, in accordance with law, within three months from 19.12.2011, after impleading Golden Dharti Investment & Finance Ltd. Regd. & H.O. 40, Block A, Subhash Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Managing Director, in the complaint as OP No.3, securing its presence, and, if it (respondent no.1) appears, after affording an opportunity, to it, of filing written reply, leading evidence, by way of affidavit(s) and hearing arguments of the Counsel for the parties. 16. The appellants are directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri on 19.12.2011 at 10.30 A.M. The file/record of the District Forum, be sent back at once, alongwith certified copy of the order. 17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. December 1, 2011 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Rg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
