Haryana

Sonipat

CC/117/2015

SHIKHA GUPTA D/O JAI BHAGWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. GENERAL MANAGER OMNITECH INFOSOLUTION LTD.,2.GENERAL MANAGER BAJAJ CAPITAL UNITED INSURANCE ,3. B - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. KAUSHIK

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.117 of 2015

                                Instituted on:27.03.2015

                                Date of order:16.09.2015

 

Shikha Gupta d/o Jai Bhagwan Gupta, resident of H.No.855/23, Dev Nagar, near Shiva Shiksha Sadan School, Sonepat through her Special Power of Attorney Sh. Jai Bhagwan Gupta.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.General Manager, Omnitech Infosolution Ltd., Regd. Office Omnitech House A-13, Cross road No.5, Kondivita Lane Marol MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.

2.General Manager,  Bajaj Capital, United Life Building, F Block, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-01.

3.Branch Manager, Bajaj Capital Ltd. Opp. Old Civil Hospital, Railway road, Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SP Kaushik Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 11.6.2015.

           Sh. Vishal Yadav Adv. for respondent no.2 and 3.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she deposited Rs.1,12,000/- on 28.9.2012 for 12 months with the respondents as FD no.1567 through cheque no.0550351 dated 22.9.2012. Broker proposal form was provided by respondent no.3, who issued a fixed deposit receipt no.1567 dated 20.10.2012 with maturity amount of Rs.1,25,444/- dated 28.9.2013.   After completion of period, the complainant submitted the fixed deposit receipt to the respondent no.3as per their instruction to submit the same before one month before the date of maturity.  The complainant requested to the said broker to make the payment as she is in need of money, but in vain.  Now 17 months have expired but the complainant did not receive her amount deposited with the respondent no.1 through respondents no.2 and 3 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.2 and 3 only appeared as respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.6.2015.

          The respondents no.2 and 3 in their written statement have denied the fact that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- with the respondents no.2 and 3. The complainant infact merely handed over/given the invested amount to the respondents no.2 and 3 with a request to transmit/deposit the same to the respondent no.1.  For the said investment, the complainant herself voluntarily and willfully duly filled, signed and submitted the application form.  The respondents no.2 and 3 as a broker and a separate legal entity is neither liable nor responsible to refund/repay fixed deposit amount back to the complainant since the same is sole prerogative/discretion of the respondent no.1.   The respondents no.2 and 3 cannot be held liable or responsible or answerable for the acts, commissions and omissions on the part of the respondent no.1. The respondents no.2 and 3 as a Broker merely acted as per instructions/request of the complainant and not otherwise.  The complainant has filed the false, frivolous and vexatious complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.  For the purpose of making investment in respondent no.1 FD scheme, the complainant herself voluntarily and /or willingly deposited “account payee cheque (invested amount) directly in favour and/or in the account of the respondent no.1 only.   The complainant has never given or paid any sum charges or consideration favouring respondents no.2 and 3.  The complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief or compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely. We very carefully and minutely perused the written arguments submitted by the respondents no.2 and 3.

           Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 orally as well as by relying on the written arguments has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

           The respondents no.2 and 3 have denied the fact that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- with the respondents no.2 and 3. The complainant infact merely handed over/given the invested amount to the respondents no.2 and 3 with a request to transmit/deposit the same to the respondent no.1.  For the said investment, the complainant herself voluntarily and willfully duly filled, signed and submitted the application form.  The respondents no.2 and 3 as a broker and a separate legal entity is neither liable nor responsible to refund/repay fixed deposit amount back to the complainant since the same is sole prerogative/discretion of the respondent no.1.   The respondents no.2 and 3 cannot be held liable or responsible or answerable for the acts, commissions and omissions on the part of the respondent no.1. The respondents no.2 and 3 as a Broker merely acted as per instructions/request of the complainant and not otherwise.  The complainant has filed the false, frivolous and vexatious complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.  For the purpose of making investment in respondent no.1 FD scheme, the complainant herself voluntarily and /or willingly deposited “account payee cheque (invested amount) directly in favour and/or in the account of the respondent no.1 only.   The complainant has never given or paid any sum charges or consideration favouring respondents no.2 and 3.  The complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief or compensation.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.  From the document Annexure C7, it is established that an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- was deposited by the complainant for one year i.e. with effect from 28.9.2012 to 28.9.2013 with Bajaj Capital Ltd., Sonepat and as per document Annexure C6, the maturity amount was Rs.1,25,444/- as on 28.9.2013.  In our view, non-payment of Rs.125444/- even after the maturity period, definitely amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  In our view, there is nexus in between respondents no.1,2 and 3 and thus, all the respondents jointly and severally are liable to make the payment of Rs.125444/- to the complainant. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.125444/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum with effect from the date of its maturity i.e. 28.09.2013 till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  16.09.2015