- (1.) THESE appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , are directed against the orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short ). The details of the complaints and the orders passed therein are as given below: Appeal No. Complain No. I.O. Dated Maturity Date 449/2003 330/2001 23.11.2001 20.9.1998 453/2003 331/2001 23.11.2001 20.9.1998 452/2003 333/2001 23.11.2001 20.9.1998
(2.) DISTRICT Forum in all the above complaints held that appellants and respondent No. 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Secured Premium Debentures issued by respondent No. 2 company. Since all these appeals involve identical questions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(3.) THE complainants respondent No. 1 averred that respondent No. 2 company issued Secured Premium Debentures which were offered for sale by opposite party/appellant No. 1. It was further averred that O.P./appellant No. 1 authorised the respondent No. 2 to receive the amount towards the price of the said debentures, on behalf of the appellant No. 1. The maturity date of the said debentures was 20.9.1998. However, the amount of debetures on their maturity was not paid to the complainants by the appellants and respondent No. 2. The complainants, therefore, approached the District Forum and filed the complaints for the recovery of the maturity amount with interest and compensation. Respondent No. 2 company did not appear in the complaints. The complaint was however, resisted by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, the present appellants. According to the appellants, appellant No. 2 acts for and on behalf of appellant No. 1. It was further stated by the appellants that they had been approached by respondent No. 2 company to act as arranger for private placement of their Secured Premium Debetures of Rs. 1,000 each. Appellants agreed to this proposal. It was further averred that in pursuance of the above agreement between appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the appellants in their capacity as arranger, had collected application forms with drafts from several persons for the said debentures; and the amount so deposited by the investors was remitted along with application forms, to respondent No. 2. It was averred that thus the appellants were only the arrangers and franchisy for collecting the application forms with the purchase price of the debentures, and that it was the sole obligation of respondent No. 2 to pay the maturity amount to the complainant/respondent No. 1. It was averred that the appellants were not liable for non -payment of the maturity amount of the said Secured Premium Debentures issued by respondent No. 2. It was further averred that the appellants had not rendered any service to the complainant/respondent No. 1 and did not receive any consideration from the complainants. Hence, the complaint against the appellants was not maintainable.;