ORDER
CM No. 1882/2005
This application has been filed by Balraj Singh, who is 77 years old and his daughter Smt. Kamlesh.
2. The applicant had deposited Rs. 3.95 lakhs with one finance company called M/s. Kuber Planters Ltd. to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter (Applicant No. 2), under a scheme floated by the Kuber Group of Companies, which had assured the doubling of this amount under that scheme. It is not known when this group of companies fell in the red, but its FDRs were seized by the Income-tax department on 8-2-1997 amounting to Rs. 5 crores and odd. This included applicants’money also and this started the troubled journey for the applicants.
3. The applicants first approached the Consumer Redressal Commission and obtained a decree dated 7-7-2000 against the petitioner-company for Rs. 9.16 lakhs. This decree also entitled the applicants for interest (a) 12.5 per cent on the deposit made by them in the company, which had assured payment of this amount.
4. The applicants then filed an Execution Petition No. 36 / 2002 at is Hazari Courts, Delhi where they were informed that the decree passed by the Consumer Redressal Commission could not be satisfied because of a stay order dated 18-3-1999 passed by this court in this Writ Petition challenging the search and seizure of the FDRs by the Income-tax department and for directions to the department to release an amount of Rs. 4,95,00,000 seized by it.
5. Even though this writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 4-9-2000 directing the petitioner to co-operate in the disposal of the statutory appeal, the applicants continued to go from pillar to post for retrieving their deposit, which was made by the applicants in 1995-96. Their application also remained pending in this court awaiting a definite response from the Income-tax department on the status of the FDRs seized by this department.
6. It was only on 5-9-2005 when this court directed the personal appearance of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax along with records that it became known that this department was holding these FDRs of the Kuber Group of Companies in Oriental Bank of Commerce at Greater Kailash, New Delhi.
7. Before this Court, the department has been showing reluctance to give the amount to the applicants on the plea that the bank has filed some OA before the DRAT against the company. The net result is that these applicants are deprived of their deposits, and it has become too late for the father to meet the marriage expenses of his daughters. What is worse that these applicants have been compelled to knock the doors of various courts for the last about six years for getting their dues which have been denied to them for one reason or the other so far.
8. Given regard to all this, it will be doing injustice to the applicants if they are not granted the relief prayed for. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax department and also the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Greater Kailash, New Delhi to release Rs. 11.21 lakhs from FDR No. 460834. This amount is calculated as per the decree passed by the Consumer Redressal Commission.
9. At this stage, we may also notice the suffering and agony which the applicants have undergone for the last several years for no fault of theirs and due to deprivation of the amount, which they have deposited and the expenses incurred by them in retrieving their deposit. They need to be adequately compensated for this. We, accordingly, deem it in the interest of justice to award to the applicants compensation of Rs. 79,000 to round up the payment to Rs. 12 lakhs to be made to the applicants. All concerned authorities of Income-tax department of the Oriental Bank of Commerce are directed to make this payment to these applicants within one week from today, failing which necessary legal consequences will follow.
10. This, however, shall not be treated as any precedent for any other claim to be made by any other depositor of the Kuber Group of Companies, as this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the no objection given by the counsel of the petitioner-company, Mr. Chittaranjan Hati.
11. The application is disposed of.