Consumer Commission excludes Bajaj Capital from liability in deposit dispute, affirms payment direction

The Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal filed by Bajaj Capital & Investment Centre Ltd., modifying the order to exclude them from liability for payment of maturity value and interest. The Commission held that Bajaj Capital's role was limited to accepting the deposit on behalf of McDowell Krest Finance Ltd., and they had no direct liability for the payment as the amount was duly deposited with McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. The direction for McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. to make the payment along with costs was affirmed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh.
2. Liability of Bajaj Capital & Investment Centre Ltd. for the payment of maturity value and interest.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, where the complaint was allowed, directing the opposite party to pay the maturity value of the deposit along with interest. The complaint was filed by Mrs. Veena Sharma against McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. and Bajaj Capital & Investment Centre Ltd. The deposit was made through the agency of Bajaj Capital acting as an agent for McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. Mrs. Veena Sharma was not paid the maturity value by McDowell Krest Finance Ltd., leading to the complaint. The District Forum granted relief to the complainant and ordered the refund of the maturity value with interest and costs, holding both McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. and Bajaj Capital liable to pay the amount.

2. Bajaj Capital & Investment Centre Ltd. filed an appeal against the order, contending that they were wrongly held liable for the payment of the maturity value and interest. The complainant had specifically prayed for relief against McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. in her affidavit and complaint, not against Bajaj Capital. The role of Bajaj Capital was limited to accepting the deposit on behalf of McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. and remitting the amount to the company. The commission received by Bajaj Capital was shared with the complainant. The Commission found merit in the submission that Bajaj Capital incurred no liability for the payment as the amount was duly deposited with McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. The appeal was allowed, modifying the order to exclude Bajaj Capital from the liability of paying the maturity value and interest, affirming the direction for McDowell Krest Finance Ltd. to make the payment along with costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision rendered by the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

---