MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUMAN RESORTS INDIA LTD AND ORS Vs. NAVIN NATVARLAL SHETH AND ORS
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2013-6-2
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 28,2013

Managing Director, Suman Resorts India Ltd And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Navin Natvarlal Sheth And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THESE four appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order since they involve identical questions of facts and law.
(2.)RESPONDENTS /Complainants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainants' for the sake of brevity) from Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2005 to Consumer Complaint No.39 of 2005, as particularly referred in the clause -title, had each invested an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/ - in 'Suman Holiday Bond' launched by the Appellant/Opponent M/s. Suman Resorts India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for the sake of brevity). Consumer complaints were filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Company by not refunding the amount on maturity of those bonds after a period of five years. On maturity, each one of the Complainant was promised by the Company to pay an amount of Rs. 1,87,000/ - against an investment of Rs. 1,25,000/ -.
(3.)INITIALLY , the Company's then Managing Director and Company Secretary were impleaded as the parties to these complaints as the Co -Opponents. However, subsequently all these complaint stood dismissed as against these two Opponents. As against the Company it was found that it remained absent inspite of due service of notice of appearance issued by the Forum and, therefore, these complaints proceeded ex -parte as against the Company. Thereafter, upon taking into consideration the material available on the record, the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forum' for the sake of brevity), by a common order dated 16/5/2006, was pleased to direct the Company to pay to each one of the Complainants an amount of Rs. 1,87,000/ - together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. with effect from 3/1/2004 besides an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - by way of compensation and costs of Rs. 500/ -. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Company preferred this appeal.
We heard Adv. Anand V. Patwardhan on behalf of the Appellant Company. At the time of hearing of these appeals Respondents as well as advocate for the Respondents preferred to remain absent and, therefore, these appeal were heard in their absence. We have also perused the record.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.