1. THE complainant in O.P. No. 54/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, is the appellant. His case is as follows: He made a deposit of Rs. 10,000 with the respondent on 18.2.1996 for one year. THE respondent issued a receipt for the same bearing No. FD 19/96. As per the deposit receipt, the respondent agreed to pay interest at 29% per annum and also agreed to pay every month interest to the complainant. THE opposite party extended the deposit for further three months upto 17.5.97 without the consent of the complainant. On 7.1.98 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party asking him to collect the deposit amount on 13th and 14th May, 1998 at the Head Office of the respondent. However, there was no response from the Head Office on those days. THE complainant caused a lawyer''s notice to be issued on 21.4.2000 which was received by the opposite party on 25.4.2000. THE respondent opposite party did not pay the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint came to be filed.
2. THE defence set up by the opposite party was that there was no deficiency in service; that a piece of land in Radha Nagar at Thiruvellore bearing plot No. 122 was given to the complainant at his own request in lieu of the deposit amount; therefore, the complainant could not accuse the opposite party of any deficiency in service. It was only a loan transaction. Police arrested the opposite party on the complaint given by some depositors in connection with a criminal case; his residence was sealed by the Police and his properties were attached; in C.C. No. 9290/99 the complainant''s complaint was also included and the same is pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. In these circumstances, the complaint has to be dismissed.
Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked on the side of the complainant.
The District Forum raised the necessary points for consideration and held that the matter is sub judice and, therefore, no order could be passed in the complaint. So holding, by order dated 28.9.2000, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is as against this the present appeal has been filed.
3. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that what the District Forum has recorded that a plot had been given to the complainant in lieu of his deposit with the opposite party is not true and that no material was placed before the District Forum substantiating the same; and that the District Forum was in error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the matter is sub judice.
The only point for consideration is whether the complaint could be maintained here. Admittedly, C.C. No. 9290/99 is pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. The complainant is also one of the parties in the complaint against the opposite party. As pointed out by the District Forum, the matter is sub judice. It is not possible for this Commission to render any finding on the merits of the case. What the District Forum has done cannot be taken exception to. However, it is open to the complainant to appear before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and make good his case.
4. WITH these observations, the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
