Lachman Dass Om Parkash vs Kuldeep Sharma

Hasnain Massodi, Judge

The petitioner through medium of instant petition seeks quashment of order dated 19th March, 2010 passed by J&K State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission in complaint No. 2964/2008 titled ""Kuldeep Sharma v. M/s Lachman Dass Om Parkash"" whereby the Commission has

recalled its order dated 23rd December, 2009, directing summoning of the witnesses at the instance of the present petitioner-respondent before

the Commission. The Commission's order dated 19th March, 2010 according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

The respondent in his reply to the writ petition has defended the Commission's order dated 19th March, 2010 on the ground that the procedure to

be followed by the Commission being summary in nature, the Commission was well within its rights to ensure that the complaint filed by the

respondent did not get delayed without any lawful justification.

I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The record available on the file reveals that the petitioner firm is engaged in Finance business and is duly registered with the Reserve Bank of

India. The firm is stated to accept the deposits from its customers/depositors on the promise of returning the deposits so made with interest at the

attractive rates, after a short interval. The respondent claims to have deposited an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- on his behalf and on behalf of 57 other

depositors with the petitioner's firm. The respondent approached the Commission with the complaint that the petitioner firm had failed to return the

deposited amount with interest as promised and, thus, there was deficiency in service, giving the respondent and other depositors a cause to

approach the Commission. The complaint was contested by the petitioner firm inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had no locus standi to

file a complaint on behalf of 57 other depositors. The petitioner insisted that the respondent had neither any role in making the deposits on behalf of

other depositors nor could assume any kind of representative character to maintain a complaint on behalf of other depositors.

The respondent, to rebut the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner, insisted that the deposits were made through him and that he had

duly reflected the deposits so made in his Income Tax Returns. The petitioner in order to belie the stand taken by the respondent, submitted an

application to the Commission requesting therein that the Income Tax Department officials mentioned in the application be summoned. The

application was allowed on 23rd December, 2009 and the petitioner asked to deposit the witnesses expenses and after the deposit was made, the

witnesses were directed to be summoned. The respondent on 15th January, 2010 filed objections to the application preferred by the petitioner on

23rd December, 2009 for getting the Income Tax Department officials summoned through the Commission. The Commission thereafter vide order

dated 19th March, 2010 dismissed the petitioner's application for summoning the witnesses and recalled its order dated 23rd December, 2009.

It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner and rightly so, that the Commission after it had allowed petitioner's application for summoning the

witnesses vide order dated 23rd December, 2009 ought not to have entertained objections to the application and thereafter proceeded to dismiss

the application vide order dated 19th March, 2010.

The Commission appears to have failed to appreciate that after the petitioner's application for summoning the witnesses was allowed on 23rd

December, 2009, the petitioner permitted to deposit witnesses expenses and even summons issued to the witnesses, there was no application

before the Commission to be dismissed vide order dated 19th March, 2010. There was no scope for receiving any objections from the respondent

to the application that was already accepted and allowed vide order dated 23rd, December, 2009. While there can be no disagreement with

learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission has not proceeded with the matter in accordance with law yet the developments that have

taken in the matter after the petitioner's application was allowed on 23rd December, 2009 and the context in which the order dated 19th March,

2010 was passed, do not call for any interference.

It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner was constrained to approach the Commission with an application for summoning the Income Tax

Department officials as his witnesses, when the respondent claimed to have reflected the receipt of deposits from the 57 depositors, and the

deposit of the amount so collected with the petitioner's firm. The sole aim of the petitioner was to disprove the respondent's stand and prove

before the Commission that the respondent had not, as a matter of fact, reflected the transaction in question in his Income Tax Returns and that the

respondent, resultantly, had no locus standi to maintain complaint on behalf of other depositors. The respondent after his initial stand, made a

significant departure and in his cross-examination admitted that the transaction was not reflected in the Income Tax Returns. The respondent, thus,

has taken a step backwards and withdrawn the claim as regards the receipt of individual deposits from the 57 depositors and the deposit of the

amount so collected with the petitioner's firm and that transaction was reflected in his Income Tax Returns. In the circumstances, it has become

unnecessary for the petitioner to still make the officials of Income Tax Department stand in the witness box and reiterate/state what is already

admitted by the respondent.

So viewed, while there can be serious disagreement with mode and manner in which the Commission has recalled its order dated 23rd

December, 2009, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Commission was right in its opinion that the witnesses earlier directed to be

summoned were not required to be made to stand in the witness box.

There is no reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved with the net effect of Commission's order dated 19th March, 2010. The petitioner as a

matter of fact has a right to ask for return of witnesses expenses deposited with the Commission and even ask the Commission to burden the

respondent with the exemplary costs for his having taken the stand that to his knowledge was bereft of any substance.

For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed along with connected CMP(s). The record, if any, received from Commission is

returned forthwith.