MOLU RAM RADHA KISHAN Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') is directed against order dated 27.2.2001 passed by District Forum (Central) ISBT, in Complaint Case No.943/2000 entitled Ravinder Kumar Gupta V/s. M/s. Molu Ram Radha Krishan, whereby appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the respondent with the appellant vide two separate cheques along with interest @ 15% p. a. and cost of Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

(2.) Respondent had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum stating that he is proprietor of M/s. Ravinder Traders, Naya Bazar, Delhi and is carrying on business of commission agent. He was approached by appellant Shri Laxmi Narain, proprietor of M/s. Molu Ram Radha Krishan, Naya Bazar, Delhi for a term deposit in the month of April, 1998 with an assurance that the amount deposited would be secure and returnable on a day's notice. Respondent was lured into depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid to appellant vide Cheque No.558245 dated 27.4.1998 drawn on Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, Delhi. The said amount was to carry interest @ 1.60 paise per hundred per month and the deposit was for a fixed period of three months. A similar amount i. e. Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the respondent on 28.4.1998 vide Cheque No.558246 dated 28.4.1998 drawn on the aforesaid Bank carrying same rate of interest and the deposit was for a period of one month. Both the cheques were received by the appellant vide Receipt Nos.64 and 65 dated 27.4.1998 and 28.4.1998 respectively. On maturity of the term deposit, the respondent approached the appellant many times for payment along with interest but he did not pay the amount and put off the matter on one pretext or the other.

(3.) Notice was issued to the appellant who appeared and filed a short reply dated 7.10.1998 pleading therein that relationship between the parties was that of debtor and creditor and, therefore, appellant was not a consumer as defined in Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act. District Forum-I (North District Forum) vide order dated 16.11.1998 held that the objections raised by the appellant to the effect that relationship between the parties was that of debtor and creditor and, therefore, respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act was untenable. Against the order dated 16.11.1998, the appellant filed appeal before this Commission and vide order dated 7.1.1999, this Commission dismissed the appeal, filed by the appellant holding therein that the respondent was a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act. Thereafter appellant filed a detailed reply on merits pleading therein that the amounts taken by him were loans simplicitor and, therefore, there was relationship of debtor and creditor between the appellant and the respondent. It was stated that the loan was for a short period and interest was exhorbitant and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.