DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 94 of 2018
Date of Institution: 06.06.2018
Date of Decision : 19.11.2019
Sivenderpal Singh aged 64 years s/o Tara Singh, r/o Shaheed Balwinder Nagar, Street No. 1, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.......Complainant
Versus
- Ali Services, through its Managing Director Mrs Shaliya wife Mohd. Arif, House No.1, Subash Nagar, Muzafar Nagar (UP).
- Rahul Mehta (Mobile No. 70653-09213)
- Parbhat Gupta (Mobile No.96545-23328)
- Nitin Patel (Mobile No.85860-47086)
- Gulab Rai Khatri (Mobile No.95404-46053)
- Balwant Moria (Mobile No.88267-12270)
- Shalni Mishra (Mobile No.93118-30120)
- Abishek Mittal (Mobile No.84599-17515)
- Vipal Gosoami (Mobile No.78368-00204)
- Jaswinder Singh (Mobile No.80850-68426)
All Executives of Ali Services, Chaudhry Bramacharri Market, Purkazi, Muzafar Nagar (UP).
....OPs
cc no.94 of 2018
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,
OPs-Ex parte.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.2,54,000/-alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- .
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant retired as Sr Assistant from the office of Controller, Legal Metrology, Mohali and before retirement, OP-2 to 10 approached complainant several times and persuaded him to invest his money in different companies including OP-1 Company and having trust in OPs, complainant deposited Rs.2,54,000/- of his hard earned money with OPs through NEFT from State Bank of India, Faridkot in the account of OP-1. He deposited amount of Rs.2,00,000/-in the account of OP-1 on
cc no.94 of 2018
9.06.2016, Rs.37,000/-on 15.06.2016 and Rs.17,000/-on 15.06.2016 through NEFT. Though complainant deposited the amount with Ops but he neither received any document nor any policy from OPs. On repeated requests by complainant to send any policy document, OP-2 Rahul Mehta promised on oath that Policy would be issued to the complainant at the earliest at his residential place, but they did not release any policy or policy document or any such bond. Complainant also reported the matter to Police, but all in vain. Complainant has made several requests to OPs to issue policy document or to refund his amount, but now, OP-2 to 10 are insisting that to get refund of his amount, he will have to deposit Five to Seven Lacs more otherwise his amount would be forfeited, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund his amount of Rs.2,54,000/-with interest at the rate of 18 % alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses incurred by him. Hence, the present complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.06.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 Notice was issued to OPs through registered post as well as publication. Despite service of summons alongwith copy
cc no.94 of 2018
of complaint and documents, OPs did not make appearance in the Forum either in person or through counsel. It is apparent that Ops are not interested in contesting the claim and are intentionally evading service. Therefore, vide order dated 28.08.2019, OPs are proceeded against exparte.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed the evidence.
6 As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant advanced arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.
7 The case of the complainants is that on persuasion of OPs, complainant deposited Rs.2,54,000/-of his hard earned money with OPs on different dates through NEFT from State Bank of India, Faridkot in the account of OP-1.Complainant deposited the amount with Ops but he never received any document or any policy from OPs. Even despite repeated requests by complainant to send any policy document, he was not issued any document. OP-2 Rahul Mehta promised on oath that Policy would be issued to the complainant at the earliest at his residential place, but he did not release any policy or policy document or any such bond. Complainant also reported the matter to Police, but all in vain.
cc no.94 of 2018
Complainant has made several requests to OPs to issue policy document or to refund his amount, but now, OP-2 to 10 are insisting that to get refund of his amount, he will have to deposit some more money otherwise his amount would be forfeited, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund his amount of Rs.2,54,000/-with interest and also prayed for compensation for harassment and for litigation expenses incurred by him. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 11.
8 To prove his case, complainant has brought our attention towards statement given by Nachhattar Singh Record Keeper of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Faridkot wherein he has clearly stated that as per account statement Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 amount of Rs. 2 lacs were transferred from the account of complainant Sivenderpal Singh to the account of OP-1 on 9.06.2016 and Rs.37,000/- and Rs.17,000/-were transferred on 15.06.2016. Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 are copies of statements of account of complainant that prove the transfer of Rs.2,54,000/-from the account of complainant to the account of OP-1. Ld counsel for complainant has brought on record documents Ex C-4 to Ex C-11 which are very cogent and important to prove the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-4 is the copy of Account Opening Form of OP-1 in the State Bank of India, Ex C-10 is the copy of letter written by Shabiya wife of Mohd Arif to the Chief Manager, Bank of India stating that Shabiya is the sole proprietor of Ali Services/Op-1 and she has current account with bank.
cc no.94 of 2018
Statement given by Nachhattar Siongh/Record Keeper and Manish Kumar, Clerk of Bank of India prove the point that amount of Rs.2,54,000/- was received from the account of complainant through NEFT in the account of Ali Services/OP-1 on 9.06.2016 and 15.06.2016. Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 statements of bank account of complainant and OP-1, also reflect the similar story. Complainant has reiterated his entire grievance through his affidavit Ex C-1.
9 After careful perusal of the record and in the light of aforementioned discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in not refunding the amount received from complainant. OP-1 has retained the huge amount of complainant for no reason and therefore, has been deficient in providing services and it amounts to trade mal practice on the part of OP-1. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence on record to prove his case. The authenticity of documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 i.e statement of account released by bank to complainant is beyond doubt. Statements given by Nachhattar Singh Record Keeper and Manish Kumar Clerk of Bank make it crystal clear that complainant paid the amount of Rs.2,54,000/- to OP-1 through NEFT. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1. It is observed that OP-2 to 10 have no role in fetching refund to complainant and therefore, complaint against OP-2 to 10 stands dismissed. OP-1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,54,000/- i.e the amount deposited by complainant with OP-1
cc no.94 of 2018
alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from the date of deposit till its final realization. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.3,000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated: 19.11.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
