N.S.Singh, President.

 

Delay of 4 (four) days in filing this appeal is condoned.

 

Upon hearing Mr.S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mrs. P.D.B.Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that an appropriate order and direction is called for from the end of this Commission. We made this observation keeping in view of the statement made by the respondent No.2 in its show cause dated 28.7.97 and affidavit dated 22.6.2000. The paragraphs 3 and 4 of the show cause dated 28.7.97 and paragraph 2 of the affidavit dated 22.6.2000 are relevant and, accordingly, these are quoted below:-

 

                                                            Para 3

 

“That the complaint was mainly directed against the Respondent No.1 for alleged non-allotment of share and the respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the same. Moreover in view of the fact that the money of the Demand draft was received by the Respondent No.1 a fact which is evident from Para 3 (d) of the memo of Appeal that the Respondent No.1 had received the amount of Demand Draft at Madras from the Madras branch of the Respondent No.2.

 

                                                            Para 4

 

That after handing over of the amount of demand draft to the Respondent No.2, the aforesaid Madras Branch of the Respondent no.2 has discharged all their liabilities and obligation and they cannot be charged with deficiency of service.

 

                                                            Para 2

 

That I am swearing this additional affidavit to clarify that the D.D. No.546127 dated 10.12.1992 for Rs.7,500/- favouring A.C.C.L drawn on Madras/George Town Branch, is still outstanding unpaid in the books of the bank and the payment of the draft is not made either by the Guwahati Branch or Madras, George Town Branch, as the same has not been presented for payment.”

 

2. The statements made by the respondent No.2 in the Show Cause dated 28.7.97 is inconsistent with the statements and pleadings made in the affidavit of the respondent No.2 on 22.6.2000. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the parties did not dispute the fact that the D.D. No.546127 dated 10.12.92 for Rs.7,500/- favouring ACCL drawn on Madras/George Town Branch or Madras, George Town Branch is still outstanding unpaid in the books of the bank and the payment of the draft is not made either by the Guwahati Branch or Madras, George Town Branch, as the same has not been presented for payment.

 

3. In view of the existing facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there shall be no difficulty or impediment on the part of the respondents, particularly, the respondent No.2 to make payment of the said amount of Rs.7,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint before the learned District Forum i.e. on 11.1.96 till such deposit is made with the office of this Commission and, this shall be done by the Respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that such deposit made by the respondent concerned, the appellant-complainant is at liberty to withdraw the said money from the office of this commission after the complainant-appellant is duly identified by a learned Advocate. Apart from the above order, we are constrained to make the following order and direction.

 

4. This Commission is quite aware of the related legal provisions pertaining to the maintainability of the case/complaint petition. It is true that the complaint against the respondent No.1 is not maintainable but the same is maintainable in respect of respondent No.2.