1. THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Agra in Complaint Case No. 489/1992.
2. THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant took a policy of Rs. 10,000/- on 5.10.1983 from THE Headway Finance and Investment Company Limited, the appellant. This policy was to mature on 5.2.1992 after eight years and four months. THE complainant was to get an extra sum of Rs. 4,500/- along with bonus. THE complainant had deposited all the instalments. THE Company has paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- from the amount of Rs. 4,500/- which was payable. THE complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 2,500/- which was deducted by the Company from the amount to be paid to the complainant. THE complainant was to get a sum of Rs. 7,955/- but the Company did not pay this amount. THEy refused to pay the amount on the ground that they had no money to pay.
The complainant has prayed for recovery of that much amount along with 24 per annum interest.
The opposite party in its written statement has admitted amount payable of Rs. 7,955/- but alleged that District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. It was also alleged that the complainant should have filed an application for insolvency.
3. THE learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed for payment of Rs. 7,955/- within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment along with 18% per annum interest from 5.2.1992. If the compliance of the order is not made within 30 days, then the interest was to run @ 24% per annum.
Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party, The Headway Finance and Investment Company Limited has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.
4. THE parties were informed on service postage stamps Notice sent to the appellant, Headway Finance and Investment Company Limited, was received back unserved with the remarks that the "addressee has left". Thus the service is presumed sufficient.
We have perused the file. It is alleged that the complainant should have filed a case for winding up before the competent Court. It has been mentioned in the grounds that the complainant has taken the amount from the Section Inspector but did not issue any receipt for the same.
In the judgment of the learned District Forum, there is nothing which may suggest that the complainant was paid the amount. It appears that this fact was not alleged in the written statement. Therefore, it did not find any place in the judgment.
5. THE other fact that the complainant should have filed an application for insolvency cannot be accepted. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional relief to the complainant. It is not in derogation of any law, but can be availed of along with other laws. THErefore, the complainant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus we find that the reasoning of the learned District Forum was right. THE appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER THE appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. THEre will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.
