Isanpur Mota Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs MCS Limited

THIS revision petition has been filed by Isanpur Mota Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of the Manager, MCS Ltd., Chairman, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. and the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dehgam Branch, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 respectively).

THE facts of the case according to the Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that it had applied for and subsequently purchased three Deep Discount Bonds (DDB) certificates each valued at Rs.3,600/- under the scheme of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (Respondent No.2). Petitioner paid a total amount of Rs.10,800/- by cash on 11.11.1993 through Bank of Baroda, Dehgam Branch (Respondent No.3). Respondent No.2, however, issued only one DDB certificate to the Petitioner and since the Petitioner had paid for three DDB certificates and this was clearly stated in the acknowledgment slip, he contacted the Respondent on several occasions through telephone and also sent a legal notice through his advocate on 06.03.1996 and 08.03.2003 to which there was no response. He, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that Respondent No.1 and 2 be directed to allot the remaining two DDB certificates as well as pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs. Respondents have denied the above contentions and stated that the Petitioner had bought only one DDB certificate valued at Rs.3,600/-. This fact is clearly proved by the acknowledgement slip which was given in receipt. Apart from this, there is documentary evidence of Rs.14,400/- being deposited with Respondent No.3 (Bank of Baroda) regarding issue of four DDB certificates to four different persons, only one of which belonged to the Petitioner. Even though, there was only one single cash deposit voucher, instead of four, this voucher clearly mentions that the deposit was in respect of four parties. Respondents have further contended that Petitioner has not been able to produce any cash receipt against the amount of Rs.10,800/- purportedly deposited by him or shown any other documents/records which the Petitioner being a Limited Sahakari Mandli would have been maintained in their records as evidence that Rs.10,800/- had been paid for purchase of three DDB certificates.

The District Forum after hearing both parties accepted the complaint on the grounds that the documentary evidence which has been produced before it which included an acknowledgment slip issued by Respondent No.2 clearly indicates that the Petitioner had bought three DDB certificates for a total amount of Rs.10,800/-. The hand-written change scoring out the typed entry and recording that only Rs.3,600/- was deposited for one DDB certificate in the absence of its being authenticated or initialed, lacks credibility. The District Forum, therefore, directed the Respondents to issue two more DDB certificates to the Petitioner within three months as well as pay Rs.500/- for mental harassment.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission which accepted the appeal on the grounds that the Petitioner could not prove that the correction made by hand in the concerned documents was wrong or done with any malafide intent. The State Commission also relied on the statement of Respondent No.3(Bank of Baroda) that Rs.14,400/- credited in the Bank was the cash amount received for purchase of 4 DDBs and only one of which was purchased by the Petitioner. AGGRIEVED by this order, the present revision petition has been filed. We have heard counsel for both parties. Learned counsel for Petitioner has stated that as observed by the District Forum there is clear documentary evidence that 3 DDBs were purchased by Petitioner at a total cost of Rs.10,800/- and the acknowledgment slip clearly states the same. The hand-written changes made in this document that only Rs.3,600/- was paid and in a subsequent typed document where the typed word 3 bonds have been cut out and corrections made by hand that only one bond against payment of Rs.3,600/- was issued, was fraudulently made. These changes were not authenticated and the Respondents obviously made these with malafide intentions. Unfortunately, the State Commission did not appreciate these facts and relied upon the Respondents version as also the document produced by Respondent No.3 (Bank of Baroda).

COUNSEL for Respondent submitted that there was nothing to prove that the changes made in the two documents were malafide and in fact these were done on the basis of the factual position. Further, the State Commission correctly relied on the cash voucher of Respondent No.3 (Bank of Baroda) clearly indicating that and amount of Rs.14,400/- had been received against issuance of 4 DDB certificates by four different persons only one of which was the Petitioner. Further, Petitioner has not be able to produce any cash receipt against the amount of Rs.10,800/- which he states was deposited by him for the 3 DDB certificates. Petitioner has also not be able to produce any document or his book of accounts pertaining to payment of this amount. Since the Petitioner is a Limited Sahakari Mandli, he is bound to have maintained records of such accounts. Keeping in view all these facts, the State Commission had rightly accepted the appeal and the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record including the documents referred by both parties. It is clear from Exhibit-2 filed before the District Forum that Respondent No.2 had issued an acknowledgment slip to the Petitioner for 3 DDBs and stated that an amount of Rs.10,800/- had been paid in cash. Further, it is also in evidence in the Register of the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner had purchased 3 DDBs for which Rs.10,800/- were deposited. In both these documents, the typed entries have been changed and replaced by hand-written entries to the effect that only one DDB certificate was issued to the Petitioner for Rs.3,600/-. There is no acknowledgment or signature as to why these changes/corrections were made nor has the Respondent been able to either enlighten or convince us as to who has made these corrections. The cash receipt issued by Respondent No.3 that an amount of Rs.14,400/- was received in the Bank from four different persons also does not clearly indicate from whom cash was collected and in the absence of any supporting evidence, it is difficult to conclude on the basis of this document that the Petitioner had bought only one DDB certificate. In view of the above reasons, we are unable to accept the findings of the State Commission and see no infirmity in the order of the District Forum which is upheld in toto. We, therefore, direct Respondent No.1 and 2 to issue two more Deep Discount Bonds to the Petitioner and also pay him Rs.500/- for mental harassment within six weeks from the date of this order.