- (1.) VERY short question involved in this appeal is that if the financial company to whom an amount has been deposited by the depositor, failed to pay the amount at the time of maturity, then such conduct comes under the definition of deficiency in service or not?
(2.) IN nutshell facts of the case are that the appellant was a member of scheme of respondents Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. in which he was depositing Rs. 500 per month for 84 months and then as per rules of the scheme the amount was to be returned back with interest andbonus to him. The complainant claimed that he has deposited the amount of all instalments in time, but he was transferred to another place and because of non -transfer of his account by respondent company from its one office to another office few instalments could notbe deposited. Whereas the respondentbefore the District Forum in their Written Version has averred that instalments were not paid in time by the appellant and so he became a defaulter and as per rules of the scheme necessary amount was to be deducted from the amount of bonus and interest, so payment was not made. Later on entire amount which was deposited, along with some interest has now been paid to the appellant after the order of District Forum.
(3.) LEARNED District Forum came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service as the appellant himself was defaulter. However, the respondent was directed to return back the amount deposited by the appellant along with some interest after deducing bonus. Appellant felt aggrieved by this order and preferred this appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Both parties heard in detail and the order as well as the record of the District Forum perused.;