Complaint No: 222 of 2019.

                                                           Date of Institution: 09.07.2019.

                                                                    Date of order: 11.12.2023

Devanshi (Minor) D/o Sh. Sandeep Kaura, through Sh. Anil Chander Nanda, Advocate (Maternal Grand Father of Devanshi) R/o 317/18 Mohalla Onkar Nagar, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                                  …..........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                 VERSUS

1.       KIM INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELPOPERS LIMITED, through its Managing Director, Regd. & Corp. Office: 1307 and 1311-A, Hemkunt House, 6-Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110008.

2.       Sai Kirpa Investment, through its partners i. Ashok Sharma, ii. Sh. Money Sharma S/o Sh. Ashok Sharma, having their Office in Shop No. 4, Back Side Post Office wali Gali, Near Krishna Mandir, Gurdaspur – 143521.

3.       KIM INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELPOPERS LIMITED, through its Branch office situated near Scheme No. 1. Improvement Trust, Kalanaur Road, Gurdaspur – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

                                                         Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.A.C. Nanda, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.B.S. Thakur, Advocate.

              Complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 3 is already dissmissed as withdrawn.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Devanshi, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against KIM INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELPOPERS LTD. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant i.e. Devanshi (Minor) took birth on 28.11.2011 from the wedlock of Sh. Sandeep Kaura and Smt. Parul Kaura, at Noorpur, Himachal Pradesh. Smt. Parul kaura is a daughter of Mr. Anil Chander Nanda, Advocate, resident of Onkar Nagar, Gurdaspur. It is pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 is regd. agent of the opposite party No. 1 vide Agent Code No. 0102A1100192,who met to Sh. Anil Chander Nanda, Advocate in January 2012 and proposed to invest Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 through them and get double the amount after 6 years and three months and also proposed to invest Rs.1000/- per month for five years (i.e. Rs.60,000/-) and to receive the amount of Rs.83,000/- on maturity i.e. in the year 2017. It is further pleaded that due to love & affection towards Devanshi (Minor) i.e. complainant, her Maternal Grand Father Anil Chander Nanda invested Rs.10,000/- in Lump Sum Vide receipt No. 0102Z0284140 dated 06.01.2012 and as per said receipt the opposite party is liable to repay amount of Rs.20,000/- on 05.04.2018 and amount of Rs.60,000/- was also invested by way of installments of Rs.1000/- per month for five years, vide Receipt Cum unit Certificate No.107542 dated 19.01.2012 which was matured on 18.01.2017 and on maturity the due amount was received by the complainant. It is further pleaded that all required papers for withdrawal of amount of Rs.20,000/- of alongwith Lump Sum payment receipt No. 0102Z0284140 dated 06.01.2012 was submitted by the complainant on 12.04.2018 to the opposite party No. 3 through the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 assured that due amount will be paid to the complainant. It is alleged that Sh. Anil Chander Nanda, Advocate within three months, but not paid then again the complainant met to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 who have been avoiding to make the payment by one or the other pretext and the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have refused to listen the complainant and shown their inability to make the payment for unlimited period. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to Pay the due amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest w.e.f. 05.04.2018 @ 18% along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of uncalled litigation to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Counsel for the complainant has withdrawn the present complaint against the opposite parties No.1 and 3.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount of alleged fixed deposit with the opposite parties No. 1 and 3, from the opposite party No. 2, as the answering opposite party was only doing job for the opposite party No. 1 and the answering opposite party is getting salary for the said job and have no personal business with the said scheme of the opposite party No. 1, so the answering opposite party is not liable to pay the amount as demanded by the complainant through this complaint. The transaction if any was directly in between the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 and the answering opposite party has no concern in any manner. It is further pleaded that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 through the answering opposite party and the opposite party No. 1 properly issued receipt and issued the relevant paper in favour of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the alleged investment of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite parties No. 1 and 3, the answering opposite party has nothing to do with the said deposit as the depositor and the company with whom the deposit has been made are responsible towards their liabilities and the answering opposite party is not liable for anything done on behalf of the depositor as well as the finance company. So far as the maturity value of Rs.60,000/-, the answering opposite party is not aware about the same. It is further pleaded that the complainant might have submitted the required papers with the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 and the said papers were not sent to the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 through the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is not liable for the wrong done on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 3. It is further pleaded that the complaint against the opposite party No. 2 is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.2.

          On merits, the opposite party No. 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Chander Nanda, Advocate as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Money Sharma, (Proprietor of opposite party No. 2) as Ex.OPW-1 alongwith reply.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.                    

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party No.2 is registered agent of opposite party No.1 and allured the complainant to invest Rs.10,000/- with opposite party No.1 with promise to get the amount double after six years and three months and also allured to invest Rs.1,000/- per month for five years i.e. Rs.60,000/- and to receive amount of Rs.83,000/- on maturity in the year 2017. It is further argued that due to love and affection grandfather of the minor Devanshi had invested Rs.10,000/- with opposite party No.1 on 06.01.2022 and opposite party No.1 was liable to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 05.04.2018. It is further argued that complainant had also invested the amount of Rs.60,000/-. During the course of arguments counsel for the complainant has withdrawn the present complaint against opposite parties no.1 and 3 vide his statement dated 21.11.2023 and as the complainant intended to pursue with the complaint against opposite party No.2 only.

9.       On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that opposite party No.2 has nothing to do with the companies i.e. opposite parties No.1 and 3. It is further argued that opposite party No.2 is only employee of opposite party No.1 and getting the salary for the said job and the transactions if any has taken place between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 and 3 and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and gone through the record.

11.     Perusal of receipt-cum-certificate Ex.C3 shows that agent code No.0102A5503471 has been mentioned but the opposite party No.2 has not denied this fact that the said agent code is not of opposite party No.2. The plea of opposite party No.2 that opposite party No.2 is only employee of opposite parties No.1 and 3 has no legs to stand, as the opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any appointment letter and any salary slip to prove this fact that opposite party No.2 was not agent but was employee. Since the opposite parties No.1 and 3 have not appeared in the present complaint as they have left their last known addresses and counsel for the complainant has already withdrawn the present complaint against opposite parties No.1 and 3. The amount has been received  by the opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite parties  No. 1 and 3 as such being agent is vicariously liable to pay the same to the complainant in absence of the other opposite  parties.

12.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, if the said amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order then the said amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.  

13.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

14.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Dec. 11, 2023                                                Member

*YP*