MAHENDRA SHARMA vs PARMATMA SHARAN PALIWAL

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I dated 16.7.2001 whereby the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Shri Parmatma Sharan Paliwal has been partly accepted directing the appellants (O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint) and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint) to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 47,219/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation, while dismissing the complaint against respondent No. 4 (O.P. No. 5 in the complaint).

WE heard the learned Counsels for the parties present and perused the record carefully. The appellants have challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been responsible for rendering deficient services to the complainant Shri Paliwal and not they. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that it is only the appellants who are liable for non-issuance of the shares of the respective companies and non-refund of the share money received by them to the complainant and not they. That a FIR No. 113/2000 has also been lodged by them with Police Station, Jalupura against the appellant for cheating and defrauding them under Sections 409, 420, 477A, 380, 465 and 467 of the I.P.C. and that investigations are in progress and that they are not responsible for any internal transactions between the appellants and the complainant. It may be stated at the outset that complainant Shri Paliwal had paid a total amount of Rs. 47,219/- to the appellants on different dates as disclosed in the complaint to enable him to purchase the shares of different companies and that the said amounts were duly deposited by the appellants in the Bank accounts of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is also made out from the documents filed before the District Forum that appellant No. 2 Shri Deepak Khandelwal has also filed a separate civil suit for the rendering of accounts in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that suit is still pending disposal before the Civil Court.

From the pleadings of the parties and documents filed it appears to be a dispute between the appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of certain shares to be delivered by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the complainant-respondent No. 1. There are allegations and counter-allegations between the appellants on the one hand and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other; about their liability in not delivering the shares to the complainant or to refund the shares money deposited by the appellants in the Bank accounts of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

THE learned District Forum after consideration of the material placed before it; has held that not only the appellants but respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also responsible for the deficiency in rendering service to the complainant-respondent No. 1 and thus decreed the claim advanced by the complainant against them all. Be that as it may, though the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appear to have entered into civil and criminal litigation but one thing is apparent that the appellants had acted on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not only to collect the money and to deposit it in the Bank accounts of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but were also doing business on their behalf. There is no denial by the appellants or by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the money paid by the complainant was in fact deposited by the appellants in the Bank accounts of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been guilty in rendering deficient services to the complainant-respondent No. 1. The District Forum, therefore, has not committed any error in decreeing the claim of the complainant-respondent No. 1 against the present appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The order, therefore, of the learned District Forum calls for no interference.

THE argument now made on behalf of the appellants (which was not raised before the learned District Forum) that the dispute between the parties could have been settled through arbitration is not tenable, since in view of Section 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 the remedy provided under C.P. Act, 1986 the Act is in addition to the remedies which are available to an aggrieved person under any other law in force as has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals, 2000 CTJ 321. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed accordingly with cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.