1. RAJAN Mittal and twelve other depositors instituted separate complaints for recovery of deposits made by them with M/s. D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd., Amrit Nagar, NDSE Part -I, New Delhi on 31.1.1997 for a period of one year through M/s. Integrated Enterprises, SCO No. 485 -86, Sector 35C, Chandigarh, the local agent, named as respondent No. 2 in the complaint. Neither the principal nor the promised interest was paid and thereafter separate complaints were instituted by the depositors. These were dismissed by District Forum -II, Chandigarh on 29.11.1999 and aggrieved against it Rajan Mittal - Appeal No. 230 of 1999, H.C. Ahuja - Appeal No. 240 of 1999, Surinder Lal Ohri - Appeal No. 4 of 2000, Rashmi Relhan - Appeal No. 16 of 2000 and Pratibha Relhan - Appeal No. 17 of 2000 have preferred the present five appeals. Since the question of fact and law is the same, these are decided by this judgment. The details of the amount deposited by Rajan Mittal and four other complainants are as under : In the beginning the respondent did not appear in the District Forum. Subsequently on their applications the ex parte proceedings were set aside and a reply was filed. In the reply neither the quantum of deposit nor the rate of interest nor the fact that D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. was liable to pay, has been challenged. The important questions of fact were not disputed. The plea of the learned Counsel for the appellants had been that in Ms. Simran Macker v. M/s. D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. & Ors., it was observed that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a kind of additional remedy and the complainant could approach the Commission. The mere fact that in the aforesaid case part payment was made by the D.C.M. Jawncial Services Ltd. could not go against the appellants inasmuch as the amount deposited as part payment was excluded. On behalf of the appellant, it has been stressed that mere fact that an amount is pending against the aforesaid order of this Commission dated 9.2.1999 would not debar decision of other cases pending here since long. Besides, in D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. v. Raman Mittal & Anr., Appeal No. 190 of 1998 decided by this Commission on 9.2.1999, it was observed that notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act or law, the District Forum had the jurisdiction to deal with complaints and borrowers could approach the Forum in respect of recovery of the amount deposited with the respondent Bankers. Here also we made a specific enquiry from learned Counsel for the respondent whether any payment has been made after the commencement of the proceedings in the Sr. No. Appeal No. Name of the Appellant/Complainant Amount Deposited (Rs.) Date of Deposit Rate of Interest 1. 230/1999 Rajan Mittal 10,000 31.1.1997 18.75%
2. 240/1999 H.C. Ahuja 14,000 17.2.1997 17.75%
3. /2000 SURINDER Lal Ohri 1,00,000 10.7.1997 17% 4. 16/2000 Rashmi Relhan 1,05..000 (Total) 24.12.1996 17.25%
4. 17/2000 PRATIBHA Relhan 4,00,000 25.7.1997 14.25% Company Law Board but the answer was in the negative. The learned Counsel for the appellants Sarvshri B.B. Mittal and Pankaj Hirajee who have appeared in these appeals have told that not even a penny has been paid to any of the depositors from the date of maturity till now. In a more recent decision in M/s. D.C.M. Limited v. Shri Neeran Sawhney, I (2000) CPJ 358, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ordered repayment on 15.2.2000 in favour of the depositors and against M/s. D.C.M. Limited. Thus the conclusion is that the appeal of Rajan Mittal as well as four other connected appeals enumerated above are hereby accepted and it is ordered that the respondent shall refund various turns deposited by the appellants together with agreed interest till realization and costs Rs. 2,000/ - each through Bank Drafts. Appeals allowed.
