Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 30 (HP)

Rup Lal v. Rani Devi

2007-02-21

K.S.GUPTA, P.D.SHENOY

body2007
ORDER (Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member) - Complainants Shri Ravan Ram and Smt. Rani Devi had deposited Rs. 45,000/- on 3.2.1998 for a period of 32 months to be matured into Rs. 90,000/- on 3.10.2000 through Shri Rup Lal, Development Chamber Incharge of S.J.M. Agro Ltd. They alleged that offices of respondents i.e., the Managing Director, Regional Manager, Chamber Incharge and others were closed. When the respondent No. 3 was approached, he had expressed his inability to refund the amount but assured the complainants that in the events of failure of the company to refund the amount, he would return the same. But he had not kept his promise. Respondent No. 1, the Managing Director abstained from contesting the complainants, and hence the District Forum held that allegations of complainants qua respondent No. 1 go uncontested and un-controverted. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have contended that they were just employees of the respondent No. 1 and were not Directors of the Company and as such, they were not liable. District Forum, after hearing the arguments, held the respondent No. 1 deficient in rendering service in not returning the agreed amount and accordingly directed respondent No. 1 to pay to each complainant a sum of Rs. 90,000/- upto the date of maturity and also to pay interest of 15% p.a. from the date of maturity till the realization of amount with Rs. 500 as cost to each of the complainants. 2.Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainants have filed appeals before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla submitting that it is apparent from the facts of the case brought out on the record, and respondent No. 2 to 5 cannot escape from their liability merely on the ground that they were either agents or employees of the said Non-Banking Finance Company. 3.After hearing the parties and analysis of the material on record, the State Commission modified the impugned order to the extent that liability in the case of both these complaints shall be not only of respondent No. 1 but of all the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally, rest of the order was undisturbed. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 viz., Mohinder Pal Minhas, Sukh Devi Singh and prem Chand Kaushal had filed Revision Petition Nos. 2691 and 2692 of 2002. 1 to 5 jointly and severally, rest of the order was undisturbed. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 viz., Mohinder Pal Minhas, Sukh Devi Singh and prem Chand Kaushal had filed Revision Petition Nos. 2691 and 2692 of 2002. In these revision petitions, they submitted that virtually there is no case as they are just employees of S.J.M. Ltd. and further they had not received any money from the complainants. This Commission through its order dated 4.11.2004 allowed the revision petitions as no cause of action arose against these three petitioners. 5.Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission respondent No. 3 Rup Lal has filed this revision petition. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the order of the District Forum was correct as respondent No. 1 was the Managing Director and he alone was liable to pay. The revision petitioner was only an agent and an employee of the company who has received amount on behalf of the company and deposited the same with the company. Hence, he is not liable as per Section 230 of the Contract Act and no liability can be fastened to him. This Commission, in Revision Petition Nos. 2691 and 2692 of 2002, has allowed revision petitions of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The same logic applies to the respondent No. 3. He has filed an affidavit stating that he is not the Chamber Incharge of the SJM Agro Ltd. but only an agent of the company. Further, the complainant deposited the amount with the company. Findings 6.The case of O.P. Nos. 2, 4 and 5 namely Mohinder Pal Minhas, Sukhdev Singh and prem Chand Kaushal is distinguishable from the instant case as O.Ps. 2, 4 and 5 were either regional managers or employees of the company S.J.M. Agro Ltd. whereas O.P. No. 2 who is the revision petitioner in the instant case was the Development Chamber Incharge of S.J.M. Agro Ltd. A copy of the receipt produced before us shows that he has received money from the complainant in his capacity as Development Chamber Incharge and it fixed his signature and seal whereas there is no allegation against the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 that they have received any money from the complainants. 2, 4 and 5 that they have received any money from the complainants. 7.Further, the revision petitioner has assured the complainants that in case the respondent No. 1 company fails to return the money he would try to refund the money. This statement is corroborated by the affidavit filed by the three other depositors viz., Kaushalya Devi, Brij Lal and Nek Ram who have been refunded part of the amount by Rup Lal on behalf of the S.J.M. Agro Ltd. In his affidavit, Rup Lal has not controverted the allegation that he has promised the complainant to refund the amount in the event of the failure of the company to do so. The role of the revision petitioner has been amply described as a moving spirit in the entire transaction between the depositors and the company. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to take the technical plea that he was merely acting as an agent on behalf of the company. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed. M.R.B.