MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP against the order, dated 18.3.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 241 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP to overhaul the accounts of the complainant, till the date of deposit of the amount with the OP i.e. till 31.3.2009 (Annexure C-3) and, thereafter, refund the amount, so calculated alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days, failing which,  the OP was liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. on the abovesaid amount till the payment was actually made to the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs, and compensation.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant joined the scheme of the OP and opened two accounts vide receipt Nos.01044-6781482 and 6781485 dated 28.3.2008 for Rs.25/- each for 3 years. It was stated that the complainant regularly deposited the money upto 31.3.2009, and obtained signatures of the agent concerned.  In November, 2009, when the complainant enquired regarding the money deposited by her, from the  OP, it made entries in her passbook upto 31.1.2008, showing total amount of Rs.8,225/- and 31.1.2009 showing total amount of Rs.8,275/- respectively.  It was further stated that the OP did not credit the amount deposited by the complainant upto 31.3.2009, in her passbooks, and the employees of the OP embezzled the depositor’s money.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP, wherein, it was admitted that the complainant opened two accounts under the Sahara 4 DS Scheme, under daily deposit mode, with a denomination of Rs.25/- with tenure of 84 months, and maturity date was 26.3.2015.  It was denied that the OP or its agent collected money from her, under daily collection scheme, during the period from 26.3.2008 to 31.3.2009, or the maturity of the accounts, was after three years. It was stated that she did not run her account regularly and deposited an amount of Rs.5,050/- in A/c No.23972200659 upto 31.8.2009 and a total sum of Rs.4,820/- in account N0.23972200656 upto 31.8.2009. It was further stated that the accounts of the complainant fell under default category, and she had produced a copy of the passbook, with fake entries. It was further stated that the balance/interest credited upto 31.3.2010, in both the accounts was Rs.5,183/- and Rs.4,946/- respectively. It was further stated that the complainant never visited the office of the OP, and it did not refuse to make credit entries, in her passbooks. It  was further stated that it never refused to refund the amount lying with it.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP, filed the instant appeal.

7.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the evidence and record, of the case carefully.

8.         The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, biased and contrary to the material available on record. He further contended that the learned District Forum fell into an error while giving its finding that it is for the appellant to prove the mode of collection made by them. It was further contended that the documentary evidence, on record, is altogether against the respondent/complainant, and, in favour of the appellant. It was further contended that the alleged dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and, therefore, the same can only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the learned District Forum decided the complaint in a hot haste and passed the impugned order relying on the bald statement of the respondent. It was further contended that the learned District Forum hopelessly failed to spell out the reasons, which forced her, to come to the conclusion that the appellant had been grossly negligent in rendering proper service to her. It was further contended that the learned District Forum conveniently deviated from the well established principles of law, that when the interest had been given then the compensation could not be granted and, as such, both could not co-exist. He further submitted that the learned District Forum failed to consider the arguments advanced, on behalf of appellant, and the documents placed on record. It was further submitted that the order being illegal be set aside.  

9.         The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that the complainant joined the scheme of the OP vide receipts dated 28.3.2008 for Rs.25/- each for 3 years and regularly deposited the money upto 31.3.2009 but when she enquired about the money deposited by her from the  OP, in the month of November, 2009, the OP was found to have made entries upto 31.1.2008 showing an amount of Rs.8,225/- and upto 31.1.2009 showing an amount of Rs.8,275/- but the OP did not credit the amount upto 31.3.2009 and embezzled the depositors money. It was further contended that in the District Forum, the complainant had placed on record, the receipt of Rs.50/- (marked as Annexure C-3), towards the said scheme, for the period from 21^st February to 9^th March, but the OP did not update her passbook and did not credit the amount for the said period. It was further contended that the impugned order, passed by the learned District Forum, is well reasoned.

10.       The controversy, involved in the present case, is regarding the amount deposited by the complainant, in her two accounts. The complainant opened two accounts, under the Sahara 4 DS Scheme, under daily deposit mode with a denomination of Rs.25/- each, for three years, through the agent of OP. She regularly deposited the money upto 31.3.2009, and also obtained his signatures on the receipts issued by him, against the payment, made by her. In November, she enquired from the OP, as to how much amount she had deposited. The OP made the entries in her passbook, upto 31.1.2009 (whereas inadvertently in complaint and the impugned order the date has been mentioned as 31.1.2008) for Rs.8,225/-, whereas, on 31.1.2009, as per receipts issued by the OP, she had deposited a sum of Rs.8275/-.  The OP failed to adduce any evidence that fake entries were made by the complainant, in her passbooks. On the other hand, the receipts, as well as the passbook of the complainant, clearly showed that the acknowledgment/signatures were of the same person. It was, thus, established that the complainant had deposited the amount, as per the entries made in the passbook, and as per the receipts, issued by the agent of the OP. She had not made fake entries, in the passbook. Therefore, she is entitled for the refund of the amount, which she deposited with the OP, and shown in her passbook. The District Forum did not err in directing the OP to refund the amount. We do not find any illegality, n the order, of the District Forum.

11.       In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the OP is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld.

12.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

30^th August, 2011.