C.P. Suresh, Member:
1. The unsuccessful opposite party is the appellant before this Commission. The facts in brief are that the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- in Fix Deposit for a period of one year with the opposite party and the opposite party issued certificates to that effect. In spite of approaching the opposite party for refund of Fixed Deposit amount with interest, opposite parties failed to refund the amount. Complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum claiming refund of Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and also for costs.
Opposite party sent its written version contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant is not a consumer.
2. Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced the District Forum held that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and directed it to repay Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 3.1.1997 till the date of payment besides costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the said finding and order the third opposite party preferred this appeal.
The point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, and if so, whether the complainant is entitled for any damages ?
4. The first ground that was taken in the grounds of appeal is that the complainant is not a consumer and the District Forum has no jurisdiction. The well settled proposition is that the complainant is consumer as he has deposited his monies with the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to refund the amount with agreed interest at the agreed time. There cannot be any objection by the opposite party on this ground.
The opposite party has also taken a ground that since its Head Office is situate at Calcutta, the Courts at Calcutta only have jurisdiction and the District Forum at Kakinada has no jurisdiction. This contention must be negatived at the thresh-hold as its Branch Office is situated at Kakinada and the complainant has deposited his monies at the Branch Office at Kakinada, therefore, the District Forum, Kakinada has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
5. The other submission that was submitted by the appellant in the Grounds of Appeal is that under Section 45QA of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 only the Company Law Board has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the District Forum has no jurisdiction. In Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. v. State of A.P., I (2001) CPJ 230=2000 (5) ALD 418, our High Court held that âThe provisions of Sections 45Q, 45QA of the RBI Act and Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, do not either expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the Forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act from entertaining a consumer dispute case at the instance of the depositor claiming repayment of the deposit from a non-banking finance Company. In view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, remedy under the said Act is an additional remedy and the same cannot be taken away either by the RBI Act or by the Companies Actâ.
In view of the law laid down in the above decision, the appellant cannot contend that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This ground must also be negatived.
6. It is further submitted in the Grounds of Appeal that as per the directions of the Company Law Board they are paying the amounts as per the schedule given by the Company Law Board. At page 7 of the order of the Company Law Board, Calcutta modified repayment schedule is shown. Under this scheme the opposite party ought to have paid 10 per cent between 25th, 30th month and must have completed the payment in instalments of 10 per cent, 20 per cent, and 25 per cent by 54th month from the date of order of the Company Law Board. The order of the Company Law Board is dated 27.5.1998. We have no information whether the orders of the Company Law Board are complied with, and the payments are made or not. Therefore, even on this ground also the appellant cannot claim that he is entitled to withhold payment due to the complainant.
7. The District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Time for payment six weeks.
Appeal dismissed.