MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This is an appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order, dated 12.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 366 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint, for want of jurisdiction, on the ground, that the allegations of fraud and cheating had been levelled against the OPs by the complainant.  

2.             Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of his hard earned money, with OP No.1 Society, vide Fixed Deposit Receipt [FDR] No. 7935, dated 11.3.2002, which was repayable, after seven years, and the maturity value of Rs.2,00,000/- was assured, to be paid, on the due date i.e. 11.03.2009. It was stated that immediately, after the said maturity date, the complainant approached OPs No. 2 & 3, for the repayment of maturity amount, but they dilly-dallied the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was only after much persuasion that they issued two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, out of which, only one cheque was got encashed, while the other was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. It was further stated that when a legal notice was served upon them, OP Nos. 2&3 gave ridiculous excuses for the said dishonour of Cheque, and issued another cheque for Rs.50,000/-, in lieu of the earlier dishonoured cheque, but to the utter shock of the Complainant, the newly issued cheque was also dishonoured, when presented. Resultantly, another legal notice was served upon the OPs, but to no effect. Faced with this situation, the Complainant had to file a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, besides a Crl. Complaint u/s 418, 420, 406, 464, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, against the OPs, which were pending for adjudication before the Courts at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant was cheated, by the OPs, by not paying the full maturity amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and instead only paid him Rs.50,000/- through one cheque. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.                     Joint reply was filed, by the OPs, wherein, they raised the plea that once the element of fraud or cheating was alleged, the dispute could not be adjudicated
upon by the Consumer Forum, being outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Investment of amount of Rs.1.00 lac by the complainant with the OPs was not specifically denied. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.     Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the instant appeal. 

7.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have perused the record, carefully.

8.             It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant that the District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint, despite the fact that the OPs themselves admitted the factum of FDR, non-payment of maturity amount, bouncing of cheques etc. It was further submitted that during the pendency of complaint before the learned District Forum, the OPs, made a part payment of Rs.1,33,000/- towards maturity amount, which itself proved that they had admitted the deficiency in service, on their part. He further submitted that they, thus, admitted the actual date of maturity as 11.3.2009. Therefore, the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint by not taking into consideration this fact. He further submitted that the complainant had the legal right to file not only the Consumer Complaint, but also to take recourse to separate criminal proceedings,  against OP Nos.2 and 3. for the offences committed by them. It was further submitted that still Rs.17,000/- were unpaid, to the complainant, out of the maturity value of the FDR. He further submitted that mere raising of allegations of fraud and cheating, did not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. He further submitted that the appellant being 73 years old and, as such, a senior citizen, the Commission may decide the complaint on merits as the complete evidence was led by the parties in the District Forum, instead of remanding the case.  

9.     The Counsel for the respondents/OP,s submitted that the dispute relating to fraud or cheating could not be adjudicated upon under Consumer Protection Act. He further submitted that therefore, the appeal did not lie before this Commission. He further submitted that the date of maturity was not changed without the consent of the complainant. He also admitted that an amount of Rs.1,33,000/- was paid to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint.

10.           This is an admitted fact that the appellant/complainant invested an amount of Rs.1.00 lac in the shape of FDR, with the OPs on 11.3.2002, which was to mature on 11.3.2009, with the maturity value of Rs.2.00 lacs. As per the averments of the OPs, the said FDR, was further renewed for two years, after obtaining due consent, from the complainant, who agreed for renewal on the condition that they (OPs) would pay him an amount of Rs.1.00 lac. In support of their contention they have placed a document Annexure C-1, on the record. However, the complainant vehemently denied this fact and submitted that no consent was given by him, for change of maturity date from 11.3.2009 to 11.3.2011, but the OPs unilaterally changed the same and committed fraud and cheating with him. From the perusal of Annexure C-1, it is evident that there were no initials of the complainant, below the change of maturity date. Moreover, an endorsement was made on left side of this document/receipt, which is not properly legible. However, from the writing underneath the receipt, it is evident that two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each dated 17.3.2009 and 25.3.2009 were received by the complainant. This writing was duly signed by the complainant.  In this situation, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs did not commit any fraud and cheating, as mere change of date of maturity value of receipt unilaterally, without any intention to cause any wrongful loss to the complainant, did not amount to cheating or fraud. Our view that there was  no cheating or fraud on the part of the OPs, is further corroborated from the fact that during the pendency of complaint a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- out of the total maturity amount was received by the complainant from the OPs. This amounted to implied admission on the part of the OPs that the maturity date was 11.3.2009. Mere raising of allegations of fraud and cheating, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to decide the complaint on merits, as Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy. Since, the parties had led evidence, the District Forum was not correct in dismissing the complaint, merely on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction, as the allegations of fraud and cheating had been leveled by the OPs. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse are set aside.

11.           The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the matter should be decided, on merits, by this Commission, instead of remanding the complaint to the District Forum. The appellant is 73 years old, as is evident from record. He is, thus, a senior citizen. The complaint relates to the year 2010. The parties led evidence, in the complaint, in entirety. The Consumer Foras are only required to observe the principles of natural justice. The Consumer Foras are not required to be swayed by technicalities, in deciding the dispute. If the matter is remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh decision, it would amount to causing further harassment and mental agony to a senior citizen, like the appellant. We are, thus, of the considered opinion, that the interest of justice shall be adequately met, if the matter is finally decided, on merits, by this Commission, instead of remanding the same, to the District Forum.

12.           It was admitted by the complainant/appellant, in the grounds of appeal that out of two cheques of Rs50,000/- each issued by the OPs, only one cheque was honoured, and, thus, he received Rs.50,000/- from them before the filing of the complaint. He also admitted that during the pendency of complaint, the OPs paid him Rs.1,33,000/-, and still Rs.17,000/- were due towards the maturity amount. As per the averments of the appellant/complainant in para No.22 of the grounds of appeal he never accepted a demand draft of Rs50,000/-in complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act filed by him, and the same had been placed on record, in that case, behind his back. Thus the OPs had concealed this fact, from the District Forum, that the same had not been accepted by the complainant. Thus it is proved that still Rs.17,000/- are due to the complainant towards the maturity amount of the FDR. The OPs were, thus, definitely deficient, in rendering service, by not paying the remaining maturity amount of Rs.17,000/- to the complainant till date, due to which he had not only suffered a lot of mental agony, and physical harassment, but was also unnecessarily dragged into litigation. Thus, the appellant/complainant is entitled to get the balance maturity amount of Rs.17,000/-, which was illegally retained by the OPs, alongwith interest. Not only this, the appellant/complainant is also entitled to compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, alongwith litigation expenses. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 

13.           For the reasons recorded above, we allow the appeal, filed by the complainant with cost; set aside the impugned order, passed by the District Forum and direct the OPs as under:-

i.            To pay Rs.17,000/-, to the complainant, towards the remaining maturity amount of the FDR, alongwith interest @9% from the date of maturity i.e. 11.3.2009 till its realization.

ii.          To pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, suffered by the complainant.

iii.        To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

        The OPs are further directed to comply with the order within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount, with penal interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation. 

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