Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/158/2022

M/S SUPREME SECURITIES PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEERA CHADHA & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

KASHISH GARG ADVOCATE

28 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	158 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	05.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	28.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

1. M/s Supreme Securities Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its authorised representative Sachin Singla, son of Darshan Singla resident of House No. 1404, Sector 21, Panchkula (Haryana). (Mob. No. 98143-25725)

 

2. Sh. Sushil Singla, Director of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34- A, Chandigarh. (Mob. No. 98111-50649),

 

2. : 10, First Floor, SCO No. 90, 91, 92, Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Chandigarh (wrong).

 

3. : 16/11, Arya Samaj Road, Karolbagh, New Delhi.

 

• Appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Meera Chadha wife of Sh. Chander Chadha aged about 69 years, r/o House No. 170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, through her legal heirs:-
   1. Raghav Chadha son of late Shri Chander Chadha,  House No. 170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh
   2. Sudhanshu Chadha, son of late Shri Chander Chadha, r/o 133, Michael Street, Bloomingdale, GA 31302, USA

 

….Respondent no.1/Complainant(s)

 

2. Vipin Dua, Authorized Signatory of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., R/o House No. 1102, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

 ….Proforma Respondent/OP No.3

 

PRESENT:-

Sh.Kashish Garg, Advocate for the appellants. Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.1 Sh.Hoshiar Chand, Advocate for respondent no.2 (on VC).

==============================================================

 

Appeal No.	:	159 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	05.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	28.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. M/s Supreme Securities Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its authorised representative Sachin Singla, son of Darshan Singla resident of House No. 1404, Sector 21, Panchkula (Haryana). (Mob. No. 98143-25725)

 

2. Sh. Sushil Singla, Director of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34- A, Chandigarh. (Mob. No. 98111-50649),

 

2. : 10, First Floor, SCO No. 90, 91, 92, Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Chandigarh (wrong).

 

3. : 16/11, Arya Samaj Road, Karolbagh, New Delhi.

 

• Appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Meera Chadha wife of Sh. Chander Chadha aged about 69 years, r/o House No. 170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, through her legal heirs:-
   1. Raghav Chadha son of late Shri Chander Chadha,  House No. 170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh
   2. Sudhanshu Chadha, son of late Shri Chander Chadha, r/o 133, Michael Street, Bloomingdale, GA 31302, USA

 

….Respondent no.1/Complainant(s)

 

2. Vipin Dua, Authorized Signatory of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., R/o House No. 1102, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

 ….Proforma Respondent/OP No.3

 

PRESENT:-

Sh.Kashish Garg, Advocate for the appellants. Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.1 Sh.Hoshiar Chand, Advocate for respondent no.2 (on VC).

 

==============================================================

 

Appeal No.	:	186 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	28.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	28.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Meera Chadha wife of Sh. Chander Chadha, r/o House No. 170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, through her legal heirs:-

1. Raghav Chadha son of late Shri Chander Chadha, House No.170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh
2. Sudhanshu Chadha, son of late Shri Chander Chadha, r/o 133, Michael Street, Bloomingdale, GA 31302, USA

 

….Appellant/Complainant(s)

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Director.
2. Sh. Sushil Singla, Director of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34- A, Chandigarh
2. : 10, First Floor, SCO No. 90, 91, 92, Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Chandigarh.
3. : 16/11, Arya Samaj Road, Karolbagh, New Delhi.
3. Vipin Dua, Authorized Signatory of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., R/o House No. 1102, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties

PRESENT:-

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Kashish Garg, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 Sh.Hoshiar Chand, Advocate for respondent no.3 (on VC).

 

==============================================================

 

Appeal No.	:	187 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	28.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	28.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Meera Chadha wife of Sh. Chander Chadha, r/o House No. 170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, through her legal heirs:-

1. Raghav Chadha son of late Shri Chander Chadha, House No.170, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh
2. Sudhanshu Chadha, son of late Shri Chander Chadha, r/o 133, Michael Street, Bloomingdale, GA 31302, USA

 

….Appellant/Complainant(s)

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Director.
2. Sh. Sushil Singla, Director of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., SCO No. 230-231, First Floor, Entry from Backside, Sector 34- A, Chandigarh
2. : 10, First Floor, SCO No. 90, 91, 92, Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Chandigarh.
3. : 16/11, Arya Samaj Road, Karolbagh, New Delhi.
3. Vipin Dua, Authorized Signatory of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd., R/o House No. 1102, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties

PRESENT:-

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Kashish Garg, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 Sh.Hoshiar Chand, Advocate for respondent no.3 (on VC).

 

==============================================================

BEFORE:- JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

MA/941/2022 (in Appeal No.186 of 2022 and MA/942/2022  (in Appeal No.187 of 2022) (for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing these appeals)

Alongwith appeals bearing no.186 and 187 of 2022, separate applications have been filed by the appellant-Meera Chadha (now deceased), for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the same.

2.                Arguments on these applications were heard. For the reasons stated in these applications,  delay of 25 days in filing these appeals  is condoned and the said applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Appeals no.158 of 2022, 159 of 2022, 186 of 2022 and 187 of 2022:-

                   The above captioned appeals have arisen out of the orders dated 12.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II,  U.T., Chandigarh, whereby consumer complaints bearing no.270 of  2021 and 271 of 2021 stood allowed by it, as under:-

“…………In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite party no.1 & 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.2,00,000/- in CC No.270/2021 & Rs.6,50,000/- in CC No.271/2021 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the respective date of the payment received by the OPs, in their account till its actual realization;
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant in each case;
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation in each case. 

 Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against Opposite party no.3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

This order be complied with by the Opposite party no.1 & 2 jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall also carry penal interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.…....….”

3.           Appeals bearing no.158 of 2022 (in CC No.271 of 2021) and 159 of 2022 (in CC No.270 of 2021), titled as M/s Supreme Securities Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Meera Chadha and others have been filed by appellants-opposite parties no.1 and 2, with a prayer to set aside the orders impugned. Whereas, on the other hand, Appeals bearing no.186 of 2022 (in CC No.270 of 2021) and 187 of 2022 (in CC No.271 of 2021)  titled as Meera Chadha and others Vs. M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. and another have been filed by the complainant- Meera Chadha for modification of the order impugned by directing respondents/opposite parties no.1 and 2 to make payment of  amount of cheques to the tune of Rs.8.50 lacs and Rs.8 lacs respectively, alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 01.12.2020 till realization besides enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- in each case. 
4.           Before going into the merits of these cases, it is significant to mention here that during pendency of these appeals, an application had been filed on behalf the appellant-Meera Chadha, for bringing on record her Legal Heirs on the ground that she died on 24.03.2023, leaving behind her sons, namely, (i) Raghav Chadha  and (ii) Sudhanshu Chadha and the said application was supported by Death Certificate of Meera Chadha.  Accordingly, the  said application was allowed and Sh. Raghav Chadha and Sh. Sudhanshu Chadha sons of the appellant – Meera Chadha were impleaded as her Legal Heirs in these appeals.
5.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant-Meera Chadha that believing the assurances of the opposite parties, in the year 2018, she invested Rs.6,45,000/- and Rs.6,85,000/- with them. To discharge their liability, the opposite parties issued two cheques bearing No.00127 and 00128 in the sum of Rs.8.00 lacs and Rs.8.50 lacs respectively, both dated 01.12.2020 to the complainant. However, when the said cheques were presented, the same were dishonoured by the bank concerned, with the remarks “account closed”.  Legal notice served upon the opposite parties did not yield any result, as a result of which, the complainant filed consumer complaints, referred to above, before the District Commission. 
6.           The consumer complaint was contested by the opposite parties.  In their separate written statement, opposite parties no.1 and 2 stated that they are dealing in foreign currencies since 1995 after obtaining the license from Reserve Bank of India. On 12.05.2020, opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against Sh.Vipin Kumar Dua, Ankur Modegill, Priya Sharma, Sukhchain Singh, for misappropriate of the funds in the form of foreign currency as well as Indian currency notes and after inquiry, FIR No.70 dated 29.07.2022 was registered under Sections 408, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 467, 468, 471 IPC were added later on.  All the four accused persons were responsible for day to day business of the Branch and to maintain the account books in due course of business. The company being not an investment company, cannot by any means, get the amount of any person invested as alleged and, as such, they did not owe any amount to the complainant and there is no legally enforceable debt or liability.  The cheques attached with the complaint have been forged and fabricated and by no means are binding upon the Company,   as on the date of issuance of the cheques i.e. 01.12.2020 neither opposite party no.3 was the employee of the company nor any signing authority on behalf of the company.  Opposite party no.3 and other employees involved were suspended on 02.06.2020 and further terminated on 15.07.2020 and even the bank account to which the cheques relate to, stood closed on 05.06.2020. The matter with regard to claiming of the amounts by way of the present complaints and cheques, was forwarded to Economic Offence Wing and the same is under investigation. The remaining allegations were denied, being false.
7.           In his separate written statement, opposite party no.3 stated that he was Regional Manager in the Company from September, 2002 to May, 2020 and he along with opposite party no.2-Sh.Sushil Singla was authorized signatory in both ICICI Bank, Sector 9-D and ING Vysya Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh which later named as Kotak Bank.  The postdated cheques in question were issued in favour of the complainant being an authorized signatory of opposite party no.1. Regular audits were done by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the cheques received from customers were deposited with the bank on same day or next day for that purpose, the record was maintained by opposite party no.1.  He retired in May, 2020 and after that he had no access to the records of the Company. Since he had refused to cooperate in the unlawful activities of opposite parties no.1 and 2, false complaints dated 21.05.2020 and 22.05.2020 were filed against him before the RBI as well as Enforcement Directorate.    
8.           The complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written replies of the opposite parties controverting their stand and reiterating her own.
9.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their cases.
10.           The District Commission after considering the rival contentions of the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaints, in the manner stated above.
11.           Hence these appeals.
12.           We have heard the rival contentions of the contesting parties and also gone through the material available on the record, including written arguments.
13.           The following questions fall for consideration in these appeals before this Commission:-
    1. Whether, the District Commission was right in ordering refund of Rs.2,00,000/- in CC No.270/2021 and Rs.6,50,000/- in CC No.271/2021 to the complainant alongwith interest, and, if not, what is the actual amount, the legal heirs of the complainant-Meera Chadha are entitled to?
    2. Whether, opposite parties no.1 and 2 can wriggle out of the liability of making refund of the amount  to the legal heirs of the complainant-Meera Chadha?

 

14.           First coming to the question, as to whether, the District Commission was right in ordering refund of Rs.2,00,000/- in CC No.270/2021 and Rs.6,50,000/- in CC No.271/2021 to the complainant alongwith interest or that she was entitled to any other amount, it may be stated here that, before the District Commission, it was the definite case of the complainant, in both the consumer complaints that, in order to discharge their liability against the investments made by her with the company, the opposite parties had issued her two post-dated cheques bearing No.00127 and 00128 in the sum of Rs.8.00 lacs and Rs.8.50 lacs both dated 01.12.2020, but when the same were presented before the bank concerned, the same stood dishonoured by the bank concerned, with the remarks “account closed”. Even in the written reply filed by opposite party no.3, it has been candidly admitted by him that postdated cheques were issued in favour of the complainant being an authorized signatory of opposite party no.1.

                   We have perused both these cheques, Annexure C-1 in the sum of Rs.8.50 lacs and Annexure C-2 in the sum of Rs.8 lacs and found that the same have been issued in favour of the complainant-Meera Chadha by Supreme Securities Limited i.e. OP No.1.Thus, in our considered opinion, whatever the amount stood paid by the complainant to the company for investment, against which it has issued her two postdated cheques bearing No.00127 and 00128 in the sum of Rs.8.00 lacs and Rs.8.50 lacs both dated 01.12.2020, toward liability of the said investment, later on, the company cannot wriggle out of the same.  

15.           At the same time, it is also held that opposite parties no.1 and 2 cannot evade their liability towards the said cheques because it has been  stated by them only, in para no.6 of the written reply filed before the District Commission that Sh.Vipin Kumar Dua, the then Regional Manager of the Company/OP No.3 was authorized to operate the accounts of the company maintained with ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank at Chandigarh but later on when it was found that he committed fraud with the company, FIR was registered against him and as such his services, alongwith services of other erring officers were terminated; and that if he had issued the said cheques, the company is not liable to honour the same. It may be stated here that in our considered opinion, as stated above, once in the written reply filed by opposite party no.3, it has been candidly admitted by him that postdated cheques were issued in favour of the complainant being an authorized signatory of opposite party no.1 and at the same time, but, opposite parties no.1 and 2 are now taking a stand that the issuance of cheques in question is the outcome of fraud committed by their employee Sh.Vipin Kumar Dua/OP No.3, as such, irrespective of the fact that his services stood terminated by the company, they (opposite parties no.1 and 2) cannot wriggle out of their liability towards the said cheques, in view of settled principle of law that the master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his employees committed in the course of employment.  

It is also made clear that in the face of candid admission of opposite party no.3 to the effect that postdated cheques were issued in favour of the complainant being an authorized signatory of opposite party no.1, as such, the ground taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 that since opposite party no.3 was in custody/jail in the year 2020 and even the bank account to which the cheques in question relate to, stood closed on 05.06.2020 as such the question of issuance of cheques dated 01.12.2020 did not arise, has no significant value in the eyes of law. Under these circumstances, it is held that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to make payment of Rs.8.00 lacs and Rs.8.50 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest from 01.12.2020. The District Commission fell into an error in holding to the contrary.

16.           As far as plea taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the effect that the currency to the tune of Rs.9,90,249/- stood sold to the complainant with effect from 01.04.2011 to 25.05.2019 by way of updating her travel card,  as such, they are not liable to make any payment to her, it may be stated here that we are fully convinced with the findings given by the District Commission to the effect that the said benefit given to the complainant against the cash money paid by her, has no relevance to the money invested by her, against which, opposite parties no.1 and 2 have issued two postdated cheques bearing No.00127 and 00128 in the sum of Rs.8.00 lacs and Rs.8.50 lacs both dated 01.12.2020.
17.           As far as objection taken regarding limitation is concerned, it may be stated here that perusal of consumer complaints filed before the District Commission reveal that the same were filed on 26.04.2021 and as such, if the period of two years are taken from 26.02.2021 i.e. the date when the  cheques in question stood dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank, Vide Return Memo, Annexure C-3, the same (consumer complaints)  were well within limitation. Objection taken by the appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2 in this regard stands rejected.
18.           Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the District Commission need modification. Resultantly, Appeals bearing no. 186 of 2022  and 187 of 2022 titled as Meera Chadha and others Vs. M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. and another, are partly allowed and the orders impugned stand modified. In Appeals bearing no. 186 of 2022 (in CC No.270 of 2021) and 187 of 2022 (in CC No.271 of 2021)  the respondents no.1 and 2/opposite parties no.1 and 2 i.e. M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. and Sh.Sushil Singla, Director of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. are directed as under:-
    1. To pay  Rs.8,00,000/- in CC No.270/2021 & Rs.8,50,000/- in CC No.271/2021 to the legal heirs of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from 01.12.2020 onwards.
    2. The remaining directions given by the District Commission qua compensation and litigation and also dismissal of complaint against opposite party no.3-Vipin Dua shall remain intact.
    3. This order be complied with by respondents no.1 and 2- M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. and Sh. Sushil Singla, Director of M/s Supreme Securities Ltd. within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, failing which, thereafter they shall be liable to pay the awarded amounts alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till realization. 

 

19.           Consequently, Appeals bearing no.158 of 2022 (in CC No.271 of 2021) and 159 of 2022 (in CC No.270 of 2021), titled as M/s Supreme Securities Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Meera Chadha and others are dismissed with no order as to cost.
20.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected files.
21.           The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.07.2023

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

 MEMBER

 Rg.