GOLDEN FORESTS INDIA LTD. vs Sumitra Devi

BOTH the above appeals are directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kullu, dated 30.9.1995 and raise a common question and, therefore, can be disposed of by a common order.

THE main grievance of the appellant M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. in Appeal No. 55 of 1995 is that the agents are not authorised to collect the deposit from the customer in cash according to the terms and conditions as provided for the agents by M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. Since the amount is alleged to have been collected from the complainant in cash, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the contract by the agents and, therefore, the acts done by the agents cannot bind the principal and the principal-appellants cannot be fastened the liability on this account. We may refer to brief facts of the case in the above appeals that one Savita Thakur who, admittedly, is the agent of the appellant in her capacity as agent collected Rs. 20,000/from the complainant and deposited with the appellant for a fixed term. Savita Thakur in fact handed over the money to Mr. C.R. Dass Rai appellant in Appeal No. 37 of 1995 in the presence of the complainant and that C.R. Dass Rai issued a receipt to the complainant for the said money. Mr. C.R. Dass Rai also admits that the money was paid to him by Savita Thakur in the presence of the complainant and that the money was to be invested in the fixed deposit in the name of the complainant with the appellant M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. and that the money has been deposited by him in the account of the appellant M/s. Golden Forests India Limited.

Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellant M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. has vehemently submitted that terms and conditions of the appointment of the agents do not stipulate that money has to be received in cash from the public by the agents and there is violation of the terms and conditions of the appointment of agents and since the amount has not been paid to M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd., they cannot be held liable to pay this amount to the complainant.

WE are unable to accept this contention. In case there is a stipulation between M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. and their agents C.R. Dass Rai and Savita Thakur to the above effect, that is the matter essentially between these I parties and whatever is dons by the agents that binds the principal. Admittedly, the terms and conditions of appointment of agents are not notified to the public and the public is ignorant about such terms and conditions and, therefore, the public cannot be bound by such terms and conditions of appointment of agents. Apart from that, on the basis of an affidavit of Savita Thakur, the District Forum has found that the complainant has paid to M/s. Golden Forests India Limited through its agents Savita Thakur and C.R. Dass Rai Rs. 20,000/-for investment in fixed terms and no credit has been given of this amount by the appellant M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd., and, therefore, the complainant has been rightly held entitled to be refunded the amount received from him by the appellant M/s. Golden Forests India Ltd. and C.R. Dass Rai alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 26.4.1991 till actual payment and also costs of Rs. l.000/-.

IN these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the District Forum is right in passing such an order and no interference is called for and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. The appellant M/s. Golden Forests INdia Ltd., is directed to pay the amount alongwith interest as ordered by the District Forum to the complainant within two weeks positively or alternatively deposit this amount with the State Commission for payment to the complainant within the aforementioned period, failing which contempt proceedings may necessarily follow. The stand of M/s. Golden Forests INdia Ltd. is that actually no amount has been paid to them by C.R. Dass Rai. IN case the appellant M/s. Golden Forests INdia Ltd. has any grievance in the matter, they shall be at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievances, if otherwise permissible under the law. Appeals dismissed. ___________