Retired Colonel Pirthipal Singh Gill complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to make payment of Rs. 9,86,020/- being matured amount till filing of the complaint and also future interest at the rate of 20% per annum till realization of the amount with costs of the complaint and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, physical and mental inconvenience caused to the complainant. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is a retired Colonel whereas the opposite party No. 2 is also a retired Colonel, from Indian Military and he was known to the complainant due to the same profession. The opposite party No. 2 and 3 she being also wife of retired Colonel B.S. Bath, contacted the complainant and told that they have started a Finance Company under the name and style H & B Financers Pvt. Ltd., New Cantt. Road, Faridkot and this company also get deposits on good interest rate from the general public. The opposite party No. 2 and 3 being closely known to the complainant and they attracted the complainant with handsome interest on deposit, so the complainant deposited Rs. 4,00,000/- in the shape of F.D.R with the opposite party on 12th April, 2002 for twelve months at the rate of interest of 20% per annum though it issue up to October 2003. On the matured date the opposite party extended the period of maturity up to 12th October, 2004 and then 12th October, 2005 and lastly extended up to 12th October, 2006 at the same rate of interest i.e 20% per annum with assurance that this time the matured amount of the F.D.R i.e. in the sum of Rs. 9.73,000/- approximate shall be paid without fail. However Rs.50,000/- were paid to the complainant leaving outstanding Rs. 3,50,000/- with total interest over whole of the amount regarding which also the opposite party No. 2 made endorsement at the back of the F.D.R. Later on it has revealed to the complainant in the month of November, 2006 that opposite party No. 2 has made a statement in the Court that in the month of March-April 2000, the said Finance Company was closed as it could not fulfill the instructions and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Such a statement was made by the opposite party No. 2 on 28/3/2006 in case titled as Harcharanjit Singh V/S Surinder Kaur pending in the Court of Sh. Satpal, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot and he further stated that he is not possessing any record of the Finance Company. It is also revealed that Des Raj Singh retired Manager Punjab & Sind Bank had already lodged a complaint with the police in respect of said deceitful and dishonest act of the opposite party and a case was registered against the opposite party No. 2. The F.D.R issued to the complainant stood matured on 12th October, 2006. The F.D.R was issued by the opposite party No. 1 in which the opposite party No. 2 and 3 are partners whereas the opposite party No. 2 is claiming to be Managing Director/partner of the said firm/company but the opposite parties have failed to honour the said F.D.R and pay the matured amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum from the date of issue of F.D.R i.e 12th April, 2002 till 12th October, 2006 excluding only the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been paid i.e total amount of Rs. 9,86,020/- till filing of the complaint and also future interest is liable to be recovered from the opposite parties and to be paid to the complainant. By not honouring the F.D.R and making payment of the matured amount, the opposite parties have acted unfairly and the act of the opposite parties as such amounts to be glaring deficiency in service and unfair trade and Banking Practice, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay continuously interest @ 20% per annum as agreed over the amount of F.D.R till realization of the amount and also pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for harassment and mental and physical inconvenience. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 15/5/2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through Sh. Joginder Singh Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form, as the complainant is not the Consumer, as per the Consumer Protection Act. The proper remedy for the complainant is to file Civil Suit in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, so this complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint has not been properly verified as required under the law so the complaint is liable to be rejected. On merits the opposite party No. 1 and 2 submitted that no such amount was deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties and the answering opposite parties wrongly and falsely dragged in this case. The answering opposite parties have not committed any such illegality. No such alleged amount is due and recoverable by the complainant from the answering opposite parties. There is no question of acting unfairly by the answering opposite parties and there is no such deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite parties. The Hon'ble Consumer Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as per the Consumer Protection Act. So this complaint may kindly be dismissed with special compensatory costs. <br /> 5. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 3 appeared through Miss Manju Bala Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the complaint against the answering respondent is not maintainable because the answering respondent never issued any alleged F.D.R dated 12/3/2002 being member of H & B Finance Company nor bear signatures of the opposite party No. 3 on the said F.D.R. Actually the opposite party No. 2 being Director and opposite party No. 3 being sleeping Member started H & B Finance Company in the year 1996 and it was closed by the Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 4/5/2000. As per directions of the RBI the Finance concern could only finance the persons and there is no any provision to deposit amount of any person. Moreover when any person was financed, meeting was held and resolution was passed and then the loan could be sanctioned. The complainant himself is retired Colonel and duly aware about the rules and regulations of the Finance Company and was under obligation to enquire about as to whether the concern in which he was going to deposit the amount was in existence at the relevant time and whether the company can deposit the amounts of the people. After closure of the Finance Company the RBI again issued a letter to the opposite party No. 2 not to carry on business of non-banking Finance Company. Then the opposite party No. 2 gave reply to the RBI in his writing that he did not do any type of finance activities including acceptance and deposit. Moreover the opposite party No. 2 made statement in the Civil proceedings titled Harcharanjit Singh Vs. Surinder Kaur before Sh. Sat Pal Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot that he has closed his Finance Company in the year 2000 and not doing any type of Finance dealings. This fact is very much in the knowledge of the complainant and his counsel. On 4/5/2000 when RBI closed the H & B Finance Company the opposite party No. 3 has no responsibility of any Finance activities, if any, which was done by the opposite party No. 2 without the knowledge and at the back of the opposite party No. 3. If any activity was done by the opposite party No. 2 then opposite party No. 2 is responsible. Due to deposit of amount after closing of the Finance Company F.I.R has been registered against the opposite party No.2. The complaint is not maintainable because whens the amount was deposited the company did not exist, so the relationship of the consumer did not exist. The complaint is not maintainable because cashier is not impleaded as proper party who signed the F.D.R. The complainant and his counsel very well know that the opposite party No. 3 did not issue any F.D.R, has no responsibility and impleaded opposite party No. 3 inspite of knowledge of the above fact, only to harass and to cause mental tension, So the complaint against the opposite party No. 3 may be dismissed with special costs. On merits the opposite party No. 3 submitted that the complainant never met with the opposite party No. 3 and never any amount was deposited with the opposite party No. 3 as alleged. The opposite party No. 3 never agreed to pay any interest. F.D.R was never extended by the opposite party No. 3. It is correct that the opposite party No. 2 made statement before the Court of Sh. Sat Pal. It is also correct that a criminal case was registered but the opposite party No. 3 has no concern with the said case. It is wrong that the opposite party No. 1 issued any F.D.R because at the time of issuance of the F.D.R the company was closed. Moreover at the time of issuance of the F.D.R the opposite party No. 3 was not member of the H & B Finance Company. At the time of the deposit of the amount the company was not in existence so there is no deficiency of service. F.D.R is not issued by the opposite party No. 3, so the complainant does not come within the definition of 'Consumer'. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and only Civil Court has the jurisdiction. So the complaint may kindly be dismissed with special costs for dragging the opposite party No. 3 unnecessarily. <br /> 6. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, original F.D.R No. 1 dated 12/4/2002 Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of plaint Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 and 2 tendered in their evidence afffidavit of Retired Colonel Harcharanjit Singh Ex.R-10, copy of partnership deed Ex.R-11 and closed their evidence.<br /> 8. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 3 tendered in their evidence afffidavit of Gurcharan Kaur Ex.RW-1/A, attested copy of closing of company order dated 4/5/2000 Ex.R-1, copy of rejection application certificate of registration to carry on business of Non banking financial Ex.R-2, copy of prohibition form acceptance of deposits Ex.R-3, copy of letter of Deputy General Manager of RBI regarding the non banking financial company Ex.R-4, copy of pronote titled Angoori Devi wife of Lal Chand Ex.R-5, copy of receipt of Angoori Devi Ex.R-6, copy of plaint titled Harcharanjit Singh Vs. Surinder Kaur Ex.R-7, copy of cross-examination of Harcharanjit Singh Ex.R-8, copy of FIR Ex.R-9 and closed her evidence. <br /> 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite parties while doing business of finance got deposited Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant on 12/4/2002 and agreed to return the same after affixed period alongwith the interest of 20% per annum. Till filing of the complaint a sum of Rs. 9,86,020/- required to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant have not paid the same. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to recover the above noted amount alongwith compensation and damages caused by the opposite parties to the complainant. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2 have submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. No amount is due or recoverable by the complainant from the opposite parties. The matter in question is complicated which is to be decided by the Civil Court as no amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties which requires to be proved by the complainant in the Civil Court. <br /> 12. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the matter is not so complicated which could be decided by the Civil Court. Prima facie the F.D.R have been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Consumer Forum have jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint. <br /> 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 have submitted that the opposite party No. 3 is to do nothing with the Finance Company. The opposite party No. 2 being Director and opposite party No. 3 being sleeping member started H & B Finance Company which was closed later on, so the opposite party no. 3 is not liable to make payment of any amount. <br /> 14. From perusal of Deposit Receipt issued by the H & B Financers Private Limited, Registered Office, New Cantt. Road, Faridkot Ex.C-2 it is made out that Harcharanjit Singh Retired Colonel put his signatures as Director and partner of M/s H & B Financers ( Pvt. Ltd.) on 12th April, 2002 with regard to receipt of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant. The terms and conditions in this F.D.R make out that this amount was required to be kept deposited with the financers for 12 months continuously to earn interest at the rate of 20% per annum. On 12/10/2003 it was extended up to 12th October, 2004, thereafter it was extended up to 12th October 2005 and 12th October 2006 under the signatures of the opposite party No. 2. So it is held that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. There is simple denial with regard to execution of the documents by the opposite party No. 1 and 2. Under the Negotiable Instrument Act and Finance Regulations there is strong presumption that the opposite parties put signatures on the F.D.R after receiving amount mentioned in the F.D.R. The opposite parties have not examined any Handwriting and Finger Printing expert to rebut the evidence of the complainant. Complainant has proved signatures of the opposite party No. 2 in his afffidavit Ex.C-1. There is simple denial by the opposite party No. 2 in his afffidavit Ex.R-10 with regard to execution of the F.D.R Ex.C-2. Written statement of the opposite party No. 1 and 2 is quite contrary to the copy of the plaint Ex.C-4 H & B Financers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Angoori suit for recovery of Rs. 50,040/- is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, plaint of which is Ex.C-4. In this plaint the opposite party No. 1 and 2 have specifically averred that the plaintiff is a registered finance company and is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Punjab, H.P. & Chandigarh under the Companies Act, 1956. This is a limited company. Retired Colonel Harcharanjit Singh is Managing Director of the said plaintiff company so plaintiff is filing the plaint through its Managing Director. Certificate of incorporation stands attached with the plaint but the opposite party No. 1 and 2 have denied this fact in written reply to the present complaint. Opposite parties had been issuing F.D.Rs to various persons since they have defrauded the customers so FIR Ex.C-3 No. 11 dated 11/1/2007 was registered in police station, City Faridkot on the statement of Des Raj Retired Manager Punjab and Sind Bank against Harcharanjit Singh son of Hazura Singh under Section 418/420/463/465/467/468/470 IPC. <br /> 15. Plea of the opposite parties that the present complaint is a complicated matter and to be decided by the Civil Court is not helpful to the opposite parties as there is no such complicated matter which may requires this Forum to refer the matter for its decision by the Civil Court. The Consumer Forum has ample powers and authority to decide such like cases. So the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties in this regard stands rejected. <br /> 16. Plea of the opposite parties that they were not entitled to work as Financers on account of rejection of application for certificate of registration to carry on business of a non banking a financial institution by RBI vide letter dated 24/4/2000 issued by the RBI to the opposite party No. 1 and 2 Ex.R-2 is not helpful to the opposite parties. The opposite parties having not been authorized by the RBI still had been doing business of financers so they have defrauded the complainant. They have indulged themselves in mal practice by getting deposits from the various persons. A depositor is not bound to check all the documents or authorities of a Financial Institution to deposit amounts for fixed term. The receipt Ex.C-2 can be considered as a receipt in private functioning of the opposite party No. 2 in his personal capacity. So the statement Ex.R-8 made by Sh. Harcharanjit Singh in the Court of Sh. Sat Pal Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot on 28/3/2006 in a Civil Suit Harcharanjit Singh Versus Surinder Kaur Ex.R-7 for possession through specific performance of agreement dated 10/11/2000 is not helpful to the opposite parties, rather filing of this Suit in the long way is going to prove that the opposite parties had been doing business of private financers. They had been lending money. They also had been collecting the money in the shape of F.D.Rs etc. with which the depositors were to receive huge amount after maturity of the FDR. This was a allurement given by the opposite parties to the depositors by not making payment of the matured amount, they have made themselves guilty of deficiency of services as financers. In his cross-examination Ex.R-8 Sh. Harcharanjit Singh has admitted that he started a finance company in the name and style of M/s H & B Finance Company of which he was Managing Director. He started this company in December 1996. Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur wife of Colonel B.S. Bath was other partner in the H & B Finance Company. She was also working in the finance company. The finance company was closed in March/April 2000.<br /> 17. Opposite parties have not placed any documents as to what are the liabilities of the different partners of the company after its dissolution. So liabilty to make payment of the amounts in FDRs are held to be upon the signatory of the receipts. <br /> 18. Complainant has filed this complaint on the basis of the particulars mentioned in the receipt Ex.C-2. It has abeen signed by the opposite party No. 2. As per statement of Harcharanjit Singh Ex.R-8 the company was dissolved in March/April 2000. The receipt in question has been executed by Harcharanjit Singh on 12th April, 2002. So the opposite party No. 3 in any manner is not liable to make payment of the any amount. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 are held to made themselves deficient in services to be provided by them to the complainant for non payment of the FDR Ex.C-2 on its maturity. <br /> 19. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 and 2 are directed to make payment of Rs. 9,86,020/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 20% per annum agreed rate of interest from 11/5/2007 till the decision of the present complaint with costs of Rs. 1000/-, within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above noted amount alongwith interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of the decision of this complaint till its realization. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 13/11/2007<br />