S.C.VYAS,PRESIDENT (ORAL) - (1.) THIS order will govern disposal of all the six Appeal Nos.503/2007, 504/2007, 505/2007, 506/2007, 507/2007 and 508/2007, which have arisen out of a common order passed in six complaint cases. For convenience the complainants of the six appeals will be referred as appellants and the OPs as respondents. Original of this order be retained in Appeal No. 503/2007 and one copy of it be retained in the record of remaining five appeals.
(2.) THESE appeals have been directed against a common order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baster at Jagdalpur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case Nos.18/2004, 67/2003, 68/2003, 69/2003, 70/2003, 71/2003 and 72/2003, whereby all these complaints have been allowed but only OP -4, who was ex parte before the District Forum, was directed to pay the amount to the complainants therein. The amount was deposited by the complainants in the Fixed Deposit Account and was not paid on maturity.
(3.) THE facts of the cases are that respondent Nos. l to 3 herein, are resident of Jagdalpur and having familiar relations with the complainants/appellants being their neighbour. It is alleged that these three respondents informed the complainants regarding Financial Investment Company and encouraged them to deposit their savings in that Company, for generating a good profit. On their assurance and encouragement, different amounts were deposited by the complainants in the Company, but after the date of maturity, nothing was paid by the Company to the complainants. Later on it revealed that it was a forged Company and most of the persons, who were involved in the Company, have become underground. Even respondent No. l, who was Office Incharge of that Company had also left Jagdalpur. Remaining persons also refused to pay any amounts to the complainants. It was alleged that all of them have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, so damages were claimed against all the respondents including refund of deposited amount. In reply, respondent No. l separately and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, have asserted that the respondent No. 4 Company, was a registered Company and a duly licensed Company for financial activities, having its head office at Calcutta. The licence was also granted to this Company for carrying its activities for State of Madhya Pradesh and on the basis of such licence, it was functioning at Jagdalpur. For that purpose, the house of respondent No. 2 was taken on rent and respondent No. l, as Incharge, and respondent No. 3 as Cashier/Accountant of the Company started working. It has also been asserted that all deposits were with the respondent No. 4/Company and respondent Nos. l and 3 were simply working for profit of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 2 was only the landlord of rented house that was used by the company and so was not responsible and other respondents were simply employees, and were not responsible for the payment of the deposited amount.;