ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa J.(President)
1. This is a petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 seeking revision of the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission passed in appeal against the order of the District Forum. By the
impugned order State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the
order of District Forum which had allowed the complaint of the Respondent.
2. Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before District Forum
complaining that he had deposited various amounts with the petitioner and that the
petitioner had issued fixed deposit receipts. The impugned order contains details of
the FDR numbers, dates of maturity and maturity value of the FDRs. Complaint was that
in spite of amounts having been matured, petitioner did not make the payment.
Complainant therefore, alleged deficiency of service on the part of petitioner. Prayer was
for payment of amount of Rs. 2,94,648/- with future interest. Compensation was also
prayed. Petitioner could not deny receipt of the amounts, issue of FDRs and the maturity
amount. However, its contention was that the amount received by it was by way of
investment and question of any service did not arise. Its case was that petitioner was
passing through difficult times and that the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
had intervened in the matter and filed writ petition in the Bombay High Court where the
High Court issued certain directions. In terms of those directions Hon’ble Mr. Justice
M.L. Pendse, a retired judge of the Bombay High Court was appointed as private receiver
to sell the properties of the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that complainant could
file his claim before the said private receiver. District Forum, however, rejected the
contention of the petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaint with costs of Rs.
500/- and directed payment of maturity amount of FDR with interest @ 15% per annum
from the dates of maturity of FDRs till actual payments.
3. Aggrieved of the order of District Forum, petitioner went in appeal before
the State Commissioner. State Commission referred to earlier orders of this Commission
wherein it had been held that when a Company or Firm invites deposits promising
attractive rates of interest, it amounted rendering of financial service as it receives
deposits from the customers and pays interest thereon. State Commission, therefore,
rejected the contention of the petitioner that the complaint was not maintainable as no
service was being rendered by the petitioner. State Commissioner also referred to the
orders of the Bombay High Court in the writ petition filed by the SEBI and was of the
view that it did not debar the complainant to file his complaint under the Act before the
District Forum. It was noticed that complainant was not party in the Bombay High court and there was no order of the High Court staying the proceedings
under the Act.
4. Same set of arguments have been repeated before us. Copy of the writ
petition filed by SEBI has not been made part of the record of this case. However, we
have been referred to the prayer in the writ petition which is as under:
“The petitioner therefore prays:
(a) that this Hon’ble Court issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, directing respondent No. 2 to issue
orders against all the commercial Banks and or cooperative Banks
where respondent No. 1 has an account directing the commercial
banks and/or the cooperative Banks to restrain respondent No. 1 from
withdrawing any funds from any of its accounts with the said
commercial banks and/or the cooperative banks to restrain respondent
No.1 from withdrawing any funds from any of its accounts with the
said commercial banks and/or the cooperative banks and/or any of their
respective branches whether in India/abroad.
(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble
court may be pleased to appointed any fit or proper person as a special
officer or may appoint any agency as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
to operate the bank accounts of respondent No. 1 to pay off those
investors whose investments have been matured or are likely to mature
shortly”.
5. By way of interim order Bombay High court appointed Justice M.L.
Pendse, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court to sell the properties numbering 19 of
the petitioner which were mentioned in the schedule to the order. It is nowhere stated
that these are the only properties of the petitioner. Complainant is not a party in those
proceedings in the High court and no notice had either been issued by the private receiver
to the complainant. The scope of the writ petition filed by the SEBI is quite different. if
the petitioner feels that the case of the complainant is covered in those proceedings it is for
him to get appropriate orders from the High Court. We also note that in the present
petition Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse has also been made a party as respondent. It is not
correct on the part of the petitioner to make Justice Pendse even as a performa
respondent. We however, see no error in the impugned order of the State Commission for
us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. This revision
petition is dismissed.