N.G.NANDI - (1.) HEARD Mr. H.J. Thakkar for Mr. Milan K. Dudhiya, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Shah, learned authorised representative for respondent No. 1 (original complainant) and himself as respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 12.2.2008 rendered in Complaint No. 2 of 2006 by the learned Vadodara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Vadodara, partly allowing the complaint directing the opponent to refund the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 20,000 with interest at the agreed/contracted rate also awarding Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation by way of mental agony and harassment and cost of the complaint within sixty days from the date of the order.
(3.) IT is suggested from the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the parties as well as the impugned judgment and order that the complainant filed a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that the complainant had invested with the opponent an amount of Rs. 25,000 on 20.11.2003 for a period of 36 months under the non -cumulative scheme carrying interst @ 11% p.a. for which FDR No. 9209 was issued; that on 24.10.2003, the complaianant invested further amount of Rs. 20,000 with the opponent in non -cumulative scheme for a period of 36 months carrying interest @ 12% for which FDR No. 9208 was issued by the opponent; that on the date of maturity, the fixed deposit amount with interest was not paid back to the complaint; the complainant wrote letter on 3.1.2005 to the opponent; that on 20.2.2005 the opponent replied stating that because of administrative reasons, the account has been closed and that new cheques are being issued. But the complainant was not paid the amount despite the assurance given by the opponent; hence the complaint for refund of fixed deposit amount with interest at the contractual rate with other reliefs. The opponent appeared before the learned Forum and filed reply vide Exh. 7 and mainly contended that the complainant has no right to file the complaint; that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act; that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint; that the opponent has approached the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) and is a sick unit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 with effect from 14.8.2006; hence the complaint be dismissed considering the provisions contained in Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The learned District Forum considering the material on record passed the order aforestated which is assailed in the present appeal by the appellant (original opponent).;