2001 (3) TMI 962 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of complaint by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II.
2. Non-receipt of maturity amount by complainant.
3. Allegations of deficient service by respondents.
4. Failure to provide proof of demand draft sent by courier.
5. Error in dismissing complaint without considering crucial points.

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against the order of dismissal of the complaint by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II. The appellant/complainant contested the dismissal, claiming that the District Forum-II erred in dismissing the complaint based solely on the reply filed by the respondent No. 1. The appellant argued that the District Forum-II failed to consider the facts of the case, specifically the loss of interest for 9 months due to deficient service by the respondents.

Issue 2:
The complainant alleged non-receipt of the maturity amount despite depositing Rs. 15,000 with the respondent/opposite party. The complainant claimed to have received a fixed deposit receipt but did not receive the maturity amount of Rs. 17,370. The complainant sent a legal notice regarding the non-receipt of the money, to which the respondent replied that the demand draft was returned undelivered and was later sent after revalidation.

Issue 3:
The appellant contended that the respondents were deficient in their service, leading to the complainant's loss of interest for 9 months. The appellant argued that the respondent failed to provide proof of the demand draft being sent by the courier. The Commission held that the respondents were deficient in their service and liable to pay interest for the 9-month period, albeit at a reduced rate of 9 per cent.

Issue 4:
The respondent's failure to furnish proof of the demand draft being sent by the courier was a crucial point in the case. The Commission noted that the respondent's version was uncorroborated by any document from the courier agency. This lack of evidence contributed to the Commission's decision to hold the respondents liable for deficient service and to award compensation to the complainant.

Issue 5:
The District Forum-II's order was overturned on appeal as it failed to consider important aspects of the case. The Commission found that the District Forum-II did not properly assess the facts of the case, especially regarding the date of maturity and receipt of the amount by the complainant. The Commission held that the District Forum-II erred in accepting the respondent's version without sufficient evidence and, therefore, set aside the order and allowed the appeal in favor of the complainant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the case, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Commission's decision on each issue, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcome.