Shri Mukesh Chothani Vs. Lakhanlal Ramchand and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111022
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnOct-12-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.1034 of 1999 (First Appeal No.1034 of 1999)
JudgeShri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
AppellantShri Mukesh Chothani
RespondentLakhanlal Ramchand and Others
Advocates:Appellant Shri Mukesh Chothani in person. Respondent No.1 in person for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Excerpt:
oral order:- per shri s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member this appeal arises out of order/award dated 21/04/1999 passed in consumer complaint no.269/1998 lakhanlal ramchand and ors. v/s. m/s.asia pacific investment trust ltd. and anr. by district consumer disputes redressal forum nashik (‘forum below in short). in the instant case, respondent nos.1to3/original complainants kept deposit of rs.8,162/- with respondent no.4/m/s.asia pacific investment trust ltd., hyderabad (original o.p.no.1). complainants were to get rs.11,000/- on 13/02/1998. however, after maturity, said amount was not paid and therefore, this consumer complaint is filed. it is alleged that in this transaction, appellant/org. o.p.no.2/mr.mukesh chothani acted as an agent of o.p.no.1. forum below by impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the o.ps. (it is not made clear that both opponents or one opponent is directed because phraseology used is in singular). feeling aggrieved by said order, o.p.no.2/mr.mukesh chothani preferred this appeal. we heard appellant mr.mukesh chothani in person and respondent nos.1to3 who are present through respondent no.1-lakhanlal ramchand in person. respondent no.4 remained absent despite the notice sent to him under certificate of posting. perused the record as well as written argument submitted on behalf of the appellant. in the instant case, papers on record, does not make clear the status and the role played by the appellant in the transaction in question. in the complaint, it is alleged that he acted as an agent of o.p.no.1/trust with whom deposit is kept. no such document is on record. fixed deposit receipt is issued by the managing director of the trust. further, it appears that o.p.no.1 has gone in liquidation and the matter is pending before the andra pradesh high court viz. company application no.348/1998 in c.p.no.134/1998 and a liquidator is appointed. therefore, necessarily all the creditors including complainants have to approach official liquidator to get back their moneys. in the given circumstances, therefore, there cannot be any service deficiency which could be alleged on the part of the appellant/o.p.no.2. we hold accordingly and pass the following order :- order:- 1. appeal is allowed. the impugned order/award dated 21/04/1999 is quashed and set aside as against appellant/org. o.p.no.2 only. 2. no order as to costs. 3. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Oral Order:-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 21/04/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.269/1998 Lakhanlal Ramchand and Ors. V/s. M/s.Asia Pacific Investment Trust Ltd. and Anr. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nashik (‘Forum below in short).

In the instant case, respondent Nos.1to3/original complainants kept deposit of Rs.8,162/- with respondent No.4/M/s.Asia Pacific Investment Trust Ltd., Hyderabad (Original O.P.No.1). Complainants were to get Rs.11,000/- on 13/02/1998. However, after maturity, said amount was not paid and therefore, this consumer complaint is filed. It is alleged that in this transaction, appellant/org. O.P.No.2/Mr.Mukesh Chothani acted as an agent of O.P.No.1. Forum below by impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the O.Ps. (it is not made clear that both opponents or one opponent is directed because phraseology used is in singular). Feeling aggrieved by said order, O.P.No.2/Mr.Mukesh Chothani preferred this appeal.

We heard appellant Mr.Mukesh Chothani in person and respondent Nos.1to3 who are present through respondent No.1-Lakhanlal Ramchand in person. Respondent No.4 remained absent despite the notice sent to him Under Certificate of Posting. Perused the record as well as written argument submitted on behalf of the appellant.

In the instant case, papers on record, does not make clear the status and the role played by the appellant in the transaction in question. In the complaint, it is alleged that he acted as an agent of O.P.No.1/Trust with whom deposit is kept. No such document is on record. Fixed Deposit Receipt is issued by the Managing Director of the Trust. Further, it appears that O.P.No.1 has gone in liquidation and the matter is pending before the Andra Pradesh High Court viz. Company Application No.348/1998 in C.P.No.134/1998 and a liquidator is appointed. Therefore, necessarily all the creditors including complainants have to approach official liquidator to get back their moneys. In the given circumstances, therefore, there cannot be any service deficiency which could be alleged on the part of the appellant/O.P.No.2. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

Order:-

1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order/award dated 21/04/1999 is quashed and set aside as against appellant/org. O.P.No.2 only.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.