Haryana

Sonipat

CC/401/2016

Satya Pal Matta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Atlas Cycles Limited - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.401 of 2016                                              Instituted on:26.09.2016

                                Date of order:20.12.2016

 

1.Satya Pal Matta son of Shri Sawan Lal Matta,

2.Lata Matta wife of Satya Pal Matta

3.Vinita Matta d/o Satya Pal Matta son of Sawan Lal Matta

All residents of Flat NO.113, Celestial Heights, Plot no.1-A, Sector 2, Dwarka New Delhi-75.

…Complainants.        

Versus

 

Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. Atlas road, Sonepat through its Manager.

 

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Satya Pal Matta GPa for complainants.

           Sh. Ashok Pandit  Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that they have invested their hard earned money with the respondent in the shape of FDR i.e.

FDR No.   Date of Issue Date of Maturity   Amount    Amount of

                                            Invested  Maturity

 

105246    15.1.15       12.10.15           224000/-  251162/-

105372    6.2.15        22.1.16            500000/-  560630/-

105369    6.2.15        4.2.16             300000/-  336378/-

105390    22.2.15       10.2.16            300000/-  336378/-

 

 

But despite repeated requests, reminders and personal visit of the complainants, the respondent has not made the payment of the FDR in question to the complainants and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, they have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainants are not the consumer of the respondent. They have invested the money for profit by way of fixed deposit.  The complainants should have filed a summary suit under the provisions of CPC U/o XXXVII as the complainants intend to recover the fixed sum of money.  The complainants are not entitled to get any relief or compensation against the respondent since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          It is submitted on behalf of the complainants that the complainants have invested their hard earned money with the respondent in the shape of FDRs as mentioned above.  But despite repeated requests, reminders and personal visit of the complainants, the respondent has not made the payment of the FDR in question to the complainants and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainants are not the consumer of the respondent. They have invested the money for profit by way of fixed deposit.  The complainants should have filed a summary suit under the provisions of CPC U/o XXXVII as the complainants intend to recover the fixed sum of money.  The complainants are not entitled to get any relief or compensation against the respondent since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

4.        After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully,  we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The respondent is utilizing the amount of FDR for their personal gains.  In our view, non-payment of the FDRs even after its maturity, amounts to sheer deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The respondent is liable to refund the amount of FDRs to the complainant.  The complainants have been able to prove their case against the respondent.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.251162/- of the FDR bearing no.105246/S.1688, Rs.560630/- of the FDR no.105372/L0159, Rs.336378/- of FDR no.105369/S.1688 and Rs.336378/- of FDR no.105390/L.159 and further to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount of Rs.251162/- of the FDR bearing no.105246/S.1688, Rs.560630/- of the FDR no.105372/L0159, Rs.336378/- of FDR no.105369/S.1688 and Rs.336378/- of FDR no.105390/L.159 w.e.f. 12.10.2015, 22.1.2016, 4.2.2016 and 10.2.2016 date of maturity of these FDRs respectively till the date of its realization in favour of the complainants.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:20.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands ==========================

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: