ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 2125 of 2007
(From the order dated 3rd
April, 2007 in R.
P. No. 165 of 2005 of the
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)
M/s Sagar Suri Estate & Finance Ltd. Petitioner
versus
Prakash Wadhwa & Others Respondents
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner Ms
Reena Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents In
person (Mr. Prakash Wadhwa)
Dated the 24th
March, 2008
ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER
This
revision petition seeks to impugn the order dated 3rd April, 2007 of
the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereafter the
State Commission) in revision petition no. 165/2005 against the order dated 25th
February, 2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Delhi
(hereafter the District Forum) on execution petition no. 1502/2004.
2. The
matter has had a chequered history spanning over 10 years, which we think ought
to be recalled in some detail:
(i)
In
response to a brochure published by M/s Sagar Suri Estate and Finance Ltd.
(petitioners, a non banking financial company; hereafter referred to as the
company), the original complainants (respondents here) deposited, under the
companys cumulative deposit scheme, Rs. 3.97 lakh in 25 certificates (24 of
Rs. 16,000/- each and the last of Rs. 13,000/-), each with maturity period of
one year, during May December 1996. The brochure showed that these deposits
carried interest @ 15% per annum with monthly rests, i.e., an average annual
yield of 16.07%.
(ii)
The
principal amount of none of these deposits was paid back to the complainants on
completion of one year from the respective dates of deposits. Two deposits,
each of Rs. 16,000/- made on 27.08.1996 and 10.09.1996 respectively, were
refunded on 11.04.1998, i.e., after delays of nearly 7/8 months. The principal
amounts of the remaining 23 deposits were not paid back at all. However, post-dated
warrants for interest on maturity were issued on time and received by the
complainants for 10 deposits (including the two where the principal amounts
were also received, albeit with delay).
(iii)
This
led the complainants to file a consumer complaint in June 1998. The company did
not appear before the District Forum despite service of notice by registered
post. The Forum, therefore, passed an ex
parte order dated 28.12.1999 directing the company to pay to the
complainants, within 60 days of the date of the order the (a) principal amounts
of the remaining 23 deposits, (b) interest at the agreed rate for various
periods in keeping with the details of actual payment by the company of the
principal amounts and maturity interest on some deposits and (c) cost of Rs.
1000/-. The order also clarified that the complainants would be free to
commence execution proceedings if the company failed to comply within time.
(iv)
The
company did not comply, which led the complainants to file an execution
petition. This time, however, the District Forum dismissed the petition as the
company claimed that the matter was involved in proceedings before the Company
Law Board. The complainants appeal to the State Commission against this order
also failed on the same ground, driving them to this Commission. The company
also failed to appear before this Commission which, by its order dated
02.05.2002, set aside the orders of the State Commission as well as the
District Forum and directed the latter to proceed as per law.
(v)
In
the remanded execution proceedings before the Forum, the learned Counsel of the
company produced a document dated 05.12.2002 purporting to show that the matter
had been settled between the parties and the complainants had agreed to receive
the sum of Rs. 3.17 lakh in full and final settlement of their claims. The
company, with a view apparently to persuading the District Forum not to enforce
the personal appearance of its Chairman and Managing Director, produced pay
orders for Rs. 48,000/- payable to some of the complainants and assured
bi-monthly payment of Rs. 48,000/-, as terms of the settlement. These terms
were also not adhered to. In sum, it appears that at the end of a tortuous
process, the complainants received payment of the balance amounts of the
principal deposits during October 2002 November 2003. In the meantime, the
complainants disputed that the document of 05.12.2002 was a full and final
settlement, on the basis of the fact that the endorsement of Prakash Wadhwa on
the said document was only to the effect of receiving three pay orders of Rs.
16,000/- each.
(vi)
On
the basis of all material and averments before it, the District Forum held in
its well-reasoned order dated 25.02.2005 that the document dated 05.12.2002 did
not amount to a settlement at all and directed the company to make payments to
the complainants according to the order passed earlier in the execution
proceedings. The State Commission, as noted above, upheld the findings and
order of the District Forum by its order dated 03.04.2007.
3. During
the proceedings in this (second) revision petition, as many as six adjournments have had to be granted, all at the request
of the learned Counsel for the petitioner company. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was
also imposed once and paid. The last three adjournments were principally with a
view to enabling the learned arguing Counsel for the company to suggest a
reasonable settlement with the complainants. The trend, however, was that the
arguing Counsel would not appear on the date(s) when the issue of settlement was
to be considered. Be that as it may. On the last date of hearing, we also asked
Ms Jain, the petitioners learned Counsel as well as the complainant (Mr.
Prakash Wadhwa) to file their respective statements clarifying the actual dates
of payment(s) of principal and interest amounts. The complainant did so; Ms
Jain did not.
4. We
have heard both the parties and perused all the material before us, including
the latest statement (dated 29.02.2008) of receipt of payments and calculation
of interest submitted by the complainant, Mr. Wadhwa.
Throughout
these proceedings before us, the companys arguments have been the following:
(i) The document of 05.12.2002 represents a
full and final settlement of all subsisting claims of the complainants, as of
that date.
(ii) The complainant (Prakash Wadhwa
representing all others) is well versed in law and has been conducting this
case on his own. He would not have signed the document of 05.12.2002, clearly
mentioning full and final settlement for the sum of Rs. 3.17 lakh, had it
indeed not been so.
(iii)
The
company is nearly bankrupt and the Chairman and Managing Director a very old
person now.
In other words, the learned Counsel for
the company have had nothing of substance to add during the months that these
proceedings have been in progress before us – these months of progress
being the result mainly of their strenuous efforts to expedite a reasonable
settlement. Incidentally, in response to a specific query of ours on the last
date of hearing, learned Counsel Ms Jain also stated that so far the company
had not been liquidated on grounds of bankruptcy or otherwise, nor were there
any ongoing proceedings on that score. Be that as it may, once again!
On
the other hand, the complainants have all along contended that the document
dated 05.12.2002 does not reflect a full and final settlement of their claims
for Rs. 3.17 lakh only; the endorsement of Mr. Wadhwa on the said document is
merely an acknowledgement of receipt of three pay orders amounting in all to
Rs. 48,000/- towards payment of the principal amounts of three of the till then
unpaid deposits. He also emphasises that there was no reason for the
complainants to settle for the sum of Rs. 3.17 lakh when they had an order of
the District Forum awarding them on the principal amounts and the interest due
and, in any case, the company did not adhere to its own terms placed before the
said Forum after December 2002. In the statement filed on 29.02.2008, Mr.
Wadhwa has also given two detailed accounts of the amounts of the principal and
interest, the dates of their payment by the company and the amount(s) still due
at the agreed rate of interest. The first
part of the statement shows calculation of interest due at the agreed rate on
the principal amounts of the fixed deposits from the respective dates of
commencement to the dates of their actual payment (Rs. 5,60,170) and the second
shows the interest due from the date(s) of payment(s) till 31.03.2008 (Rs.
5,88,806). The calculations appear to be accurate.
5. Findings
We
note that the document of 05.12.2002, purporting to be a full and final
settlement for Rs. 3.17 lakh, has been considered at length by both the Fora
below. Both have rightly held that this document does not reflect what the
company claims to be a full and final settlement and, therefore, discharge of
the subsisting liability of the petitioner company arising out of the order of
the District Forum under execution. We find no material irregularity or legal
infirmity in this concurrent finding. Moreover, as the foregoing discussion
amply shows, the conduct of the company all through has been that of a rather
unscrupulous litigant adept at misusing the process of adjudication to delay
due discharge of its liabilities – liabilities that it incurred by obtaining
deposits of small sums of money from several ordinary depositors on the promise
of attractive rates of interest. A so-called settlement produced by such an
entity after several years of delay deserves to be viewed with grave suspicion.
In
the result, we dismiss this petition, which is totally devoid of merit. As
stated above, the complainants have detailed the amounts due to them as a
result of the order of the District Forum. This comes to Rs. 11.5 lakh
approximately and includes interest on interest. They have, however, added that
an award as thought fit may be passed in their favour. The sum mentioned above
is very large, though in accordance with the District Forums order.
Considering, that the principal amounts of the deposits and some of the
maturity interest have already been received, the amount needs to be modulated.
We,
therefore, feel it would meet the ends of justice adequately if, in partial
modification of the order of the District Forum, the complainants are awarded a
lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lakh. Accordingly, we direct the company to pay to the
complainants the said amount, within 60 days of the date of this order. We also
hope that the company would eschew delaying tactics this time and comply with
this order within the stipulated period.
——————————————–J
[R. C. Jain]
Presiding Member
——————————————–
[Anupam Dasgupta]
Member