Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/91/2010

Balbir Kaur w/o Shri Janak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amit Kumar Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                             Complaint No. 91 of 2010.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 9.2.2010.

                                                                                             Date of decision:27.11.2015.

Balbir Kaur aged about 66 years wife of Shri Janak Singh, resident of House No. 2085, Tau Devi Lal Nagar, Near Premi Baba Ki Kutiya, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Amit Kumar Gupta, resident of House No. C-7/488, Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  
2. Vineet Aggarwal son of Mr. Balwant Rai, resident of House No. 1623, Jaroda Gate, Jagadhri , District Yamuna Nagar.  
3. Swaranbhumi Forest ( India) Ltd. Regd. & Head Office S.C.O. 862-864, Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101 through its Director/Managing Officer.    

                                                                                                    …opposite parties.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Mukesh Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Complaint dismissed qua OP No.3 on 24.7.2012 and after that proceeded ex-parte on 9.4.2015.                

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Balbir Kaur has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay Rs. 24,300/- the maturity amount of FDR/Policy issued by ( Swaran Bhumi Forest India Ltd.  alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and further to pay Rs. 70,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses etc.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the month of September 1997 OPs No.1 & 2 introduced the complainant with OP No.3 i.e. Swaran Bhumi Forest India Ltd and after doing enquiry/checking the documents of OPs, the complainant get a policy with maturity value of Rs. 24,300/- from OP No.3 and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy complainant was asked to deposit 36 installments of Rs. 500/- each and in this way a sum of Rs. 18000/- was to be deposited with OP No.3 and the maturity period of this policy was for three years i.e. from 15.9.1997 to 15.9.2000. The complainant paid all the installments but the OPs No.1 & 2 only issued the receipt till 15.10.1999 and thereafter they did not issue any receipt in favour of the complainant.

3.                     After maturity of this FDR/Policy in the last month of 2001, the complainant asked the OPs that policy time has been expired i.e. policy in question has been matured and requested them to disburse the amount of maturity value of the FDR/ Policy amounting to Rs. 24300/- but the OPs flatly refused and since then the complainant is running from pillar to post. After that complainant has visited the office of OPs so many times in the year 2004,2005, 2007, 2008 and lastly in the year 2009 but payment has not been made by the OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.                     Upon notice OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statement jointly.

5.                     The OP No.3 could not get served despite several opportunities and ultimately complaint qua OP No.3 was ordered to be dismissed by our predecessor on 24.7.2012. It is necessary to point out here that later on i.e. 5.10.2012 complaint of the complainant was ordered to be dismissed in default by our Predecessor and the same was restored to its original number as per order of Hon’ble State Commission, on 28.5.2013 and when it was restored, fresh notices were issued to the OPs and OP No.3 was ordered to be summoned through publication for dated 9.4.2015 but none appeared. So, OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.4.2015.  

6.                     OP No.1 &2 filed their written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, barred by limitations, no cause of action in favour of complainant, no locus standi to file the present complaint, stopped by her own act and conduct and on merit it has been stated that the OP No.1 & 2 never introduced the complainant with OP No.3 and OP NO.1 &2 never stated that they are the authorized agent of Op No.3. It is also denied that the complainant deposited any amount with OP No.3 through OPs No.1 & 2. As such, there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and OPs No.1 & 2. It has been further denied that the OPs No.1 & 2 have issued any receipts to the complainant because the OPs No.1 & 2 have not received any amount from the complainant. The matter is between complainant and OP No.3 and OPs No.1 & 2 have no concern whatsoever with the complainant.. Lastly all the rest allegations are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

7.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure CA and documents such as Photo copy FDR/Policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copies of Receipts of amounting to 500/- each issued by Swaranbhumi Forest India Ltd. as Annexure C-2 to C-31 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta and Sh. Vineet Aggarwal as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2.

9.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. 

10.                   Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that OP No. 3 failed to make the payment of Rs. 24300/- of the majority value of FDR/policy in question on 16.9.2000 and since then the complainant is running from pillar to post. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that all the installments of Rs. 500/- were paid through OPs No.1 & 2 who were the agent of OP No.3 and OPs No.1 & 2 are also equally liable to pay the amount.

11.                   On the other hand,  counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 hotly argued that all the allegations leveled by the complainant are totally false and manipulated. OPs No.1 & 2 have no concern whatsoever with the affairs in dispute. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 further argued that no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove the involvement of the OPs No.1 & 2 and lastly argued that complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the present complaint has been filed after a gap of almost 10 years from the date of maturity i.e. 15.9.2000 of abovesaid FDR/policy in question.

12.                   From the perusal of Annexure C-1, photo copy of FDR/policy, it is evident that complainant might have obtained FDR/policy from the OP No.3 on 15.9.1997 with the maturity date i.e. 15.9.2000 and the maturity value of the policy in question was Rs. 24300/-. The arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant is not tenable. Before deciding the case on merit, it is necessary to decide the question whether the complaint is within limitation or not and for this section 24-A of the Consumer Protection is reproduced as under:-

                        24-A. Limitation period.

                         (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

                        (2)        Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

                        Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

13.                   In the present case, at the very outset, it is evident from record Annexure C-1 that complainant obtained FDR/policy on 15.9.1997 with its maturity date i.e. 15.9.2000 and the present complaint has been filed on 9.2.2010 i.e. after a period of almost 10 years. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant with her complaint. Even the complainant has failed to mention or explain any reason for not preferring the complaint in question before the forum in her complaint itself. Hence we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred in view of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, complaint qua  OP No.3 has already been dismissed by our Predecessor vide their order dated 24.7.2012 and complainant has totally failed to file any order/judgment of Hon;ble State Commission or National Commission in which the order dated 24.7.2012 was ever set aside. Further learned counsel for the complainant failed to show any documentary evidence showing that the OPs No.1 & 2 are liable to make the payment. Even no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant showing that the OPs No.1 & 2 were agent of the OP No.3 or was having any concerned whatsoever with OP No.3.  In the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the considered view that complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 is also liable to be dismissed.

14.                   Resultantly, in view of the facts and circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint being hopelessly time barred as well as on merit and thus the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 27.11.2015.

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )                                                    

                                                                                    MEMBER.