Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       Originally the instant complaint was filed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar son of Sh.Ram Lal as well as Ms.Pooja Khera d/o Rakesh Kumar, but during the proceedings of this complaint Sh.Rakesh Kumar complainant no.1 has since expired on 31.03.2020(copy of the death certificate is Ex.C11 is placed on record) accordingly, the legal heirs of Sh.Rakesh Kumar namely i) Savita Widow ii) Rahul Khera son and iii) Pooja Khera (already complainant no.2.) were allowed to be impleded as his legal heirs. Similarly Atamjit Singh s/o Joginder Singh opposite party has also died, leaving behind his legal heirs namely i) Manjit Kaur, widow, ii)Maninderjit Singh, son, iii) Amrinder Kaur, daughter and they were also allowed to be impleded as legal heirs of Atamjit Singh, deceased.

2.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 was running a Finance Co. previously under the name and style of “Grewal Brar Finance Co. (Regd) at Chowk Zira Road, Ist Floor opposite CNI Church Moga and now the opposite parties are running the Finance Co. under the new name & Style of Sahibzada Ajit Singh Jujhar Singh Finance Corporation (Regd) at Chowk Zira Road, Ist Floor opposite CNI Church Moga now at Zira Road Opposite Street no.4 Sodhi Nagar, Moga i.e. opposite party no.2. Further alleges that the complainant have been depositing their hard earned money with the opposite parties as opposite parties have been promising to return the amount deposited with said Finance Companies of opposite party no.1 alongwith interest as well as double of the amount deposited in the shape of FDRs as described below:

Further alleges that by calculating the amount of maturity of FDRs as well as the other amounts lying deposited with finance Co. of opposite party no.1 and 2 is saving accounts as well as in “Recurring deposit account”, the complainants are entitled to recover total amount of Rs.12,45,363/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands, requests and representations to opposite parties, opposite parties have been keeping on dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant has also got issued a legal notice dated 22.04.2019 to the opposite party no.1, but with no effect and opposite party no.1 refused to accept the same. Due to the non returning of said amount of complainants by opposite parties the complainant had suffered a lat. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1245363/- deposited by the complainant with them alongwith interest  @12 % per annum. 

b)      The amount of Rs.50,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of legal expenses and compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice.       

3.       Opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus-standi; opposite party no.1 has no concern with opposite party no.2; Grewal Brar Finance Company has already been dissolved on 06.05.2016; Complaint is false, frivolous, baseless, vague and malicious, therefore, in the event of dismissal of the complaint the opposite parties are entitled to special costs as provided under Consumer Protection Act. Further alleges that the said complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it is admitted correct to the extent that opposite party no.1 is running Grewal Brar Finance Company and the said firm has already been dissolved. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant no.1 (ii) has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and his additional affidavit Ex.CW1/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and Ex.C11 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on behalf of all the complainants.

5.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainants,  Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Atamjit Singh s/o Joginder Singh Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1

6.       Upon notice Opposite Party No.2 served, but none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. So, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainants as well as opposite party no.1 and gone through the documents placed  on record.

8.       During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant as well as opposite party no.1 has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint. We have perused the rival contentions of both the parties. The main plea raised by the opposite party no.1 is that opposite party no.1 was running Grewal Brar Finance Company and the said firm has already been dissolved. The case of the complainants is that they deposited his hard earned money with Opposite Parties in the shape of FDRs and thereafter initially Rakesh Kumar and after his death the complainants made request to the opposite parties to release amount deposited by the complainants in the shape of FDRs alongwith agreed rate of interest, but  the opposite parties are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and hence, deficiency is writ large on the part of the opposite parties. To prove their case the complainants have produced on record duly sworn affidavits of complainant no.1 (ii) Ex.CW1A & Ex.CW1/B alongwith copies of deposited receipts Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and Ex.C11 to Ex.C13. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 has only tendered the affidavit of Sh.Atamjit Singh (since deceased), Proprietor of Opposite parties Company.

9.       It is not disputed that Rakesh Kumar (now deceased) and Pooja Khera had deposited the amount in question with the opposite parties on different dates as specifically depicted in aforementioned paras. On the other hand the opposite parties has filed to adduce any iota of evidence that the complainants have not deposited the said amount with them. More-so even after dissolving the firm its Proprietor,  Partners, Directors cannot absolved from their legal liability. ,

10.     Sh.Rakesh Kumar, since deceased in his complaint now through his legal heirs has alleged that he deposited Rs.8,45,363/-, but bare perusal of the receipt Ex.A4 last page shows that he deposited Rs.10,000/- on 19.03.2011 and not Rs.1,00,000/-. This figure (ten thousand) also reflects in figure also. However, the remaining deposited receipts are found to be correct. As such, the complainant has originally deposited Rs.7,55,363/- and not Rs.8,45,363/- and we consider the said amount allegedly deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties.

11.     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint  of the complainant. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to make the payment of deposited amount i.e. Rs.7,55,363/- (Rupees Seven lakh Fifty five thousand three hundred sixty three only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from its respective deposit dates till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

12.     This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.