Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act could be defeated on the ground that the opposite party had been declared a sick industrial unit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and whether non-refund of matured fixed deposit amounts amounted to deficiency in service.
Analysis: The Commission held that a mere declaration of the opposite party as a sick industrial unit did not justify staying or defeating the consumer complaint for refund of deposited amounts with interest. Relying on the view that section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not forestall consumer proceedings, the Commission found that the complainants had established deposit of the amounts by fixed deposits and that the opposite party had not denied the deposits or the liability to repay. Non-payment of the maturity amount was treated as deficiency in service.
Conclusion: The consumer complaint was maintainable and was allowed. The opposite party was directed to refund the principal amount with agreed interest from the date of default and to pay costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Declaration of an industrial concern as sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not, by itself, bar consumer proceedings for refund of matured deposits, and failure to repay such deposits constitutes deficiency in service.