Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/89

Amita - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN KBCL INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Handa

17 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          89

Date of Institution:      20.03.2017

Date of Decision :       17.08.2017

 

Amita aged about 32 years w/o Harbhagwan Dass r/o near Octroi No.7, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Kalpatru Buildtech Corporation Limited (KBCL India Ltd) through its Chairman i.e. Jai Kishan Rana Singh,

 Address- Regd. Office 1^st Floor, JD Business Centre (Near Sachdeva Engineering College) NH-2, (Agra Road), Farah Mathura-281122 (U.P.).

2. Vipin Yadav, Managing Director, Kalpatru Buildtech Corporation Limited (KBCL India Ltd)

Address- Regd. Office 1^st Floor, JD Business Centre (Near Sachdeva Engineering College) NH-2, (Agra Road), Farah Mathura-281122 (U.P.).

3. Sukhwinder Singh, Branch Manager, Branch Faridkot.
4. Tejinder Singh Assistant Branch Manager, Branch Faridkot.

Both s/o Sadhu Singh Yaduvanshi r/o Street No. 6, Sanjay Nagar Basti, Faridkot.

 

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh. P. Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Rajinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-3 and 4,

OP-1 and 2 Exparte.

 

 (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 pay Rs.88,000/-as sum assured by them and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2                                                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a housewife and she invested in five year plan of OPs by making savings from her household and as per plan, complainant had to pay Rs.1000/-every month upto five years i.e complainant had to pay total of Rs.60,000/-to OPs and at the end of term she was to get assured sum of Rs.88,000/-.  It is submitted that complainant paid all the instalments from 23.03.2012 to 23.10.2016 i.e she had paid more than 55,000/-to OPs, but from the last 3-4 months, Ops have refused to receive the instalment of scheme and have also refused to pay the amount of sum assured to complainant. Complainant made several requests to OPs take payment of remaining instalments and if they do not want to take remaining instalments, then pay the amount realizable to complainant by deducting the amount of instalments not paid by her. But OPs are neither accepting the instalments nor making payment of realizable amount. All this act of Ops has caused great loss, harassment and mental agony to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and she has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

 4                                                      Notice issued to OP-1 and 2 through RC AD did not receive back undelivered and presumed to be served. Acknowledgment might have been lost or mis-laid in transit. Statutory period expired and when no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 either in person or through counsel, then, vide order dated 15.05.2017, both OP-1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

5                                                    OP-3 and OP-4 appeared through counsel and filed reply wherein took preliminary objection that as per rules and orders, complaint has not been properly verified and is thus, liable to be dismissed. However, on merits he has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and admitted that there was an agreement between complainant and OPs and also admitted that complainant was depositing instalments with them, but they refuted the allegation of complainant that OPs have refused to accept the remaining monthly instalments of said scheme. It is asserted that complainant herself denied to deposit the remaining instalments. It is averred that their Company is intended to release the amount of its all customers from May, 2017 and in this regard, company has issued letter and list of customers, who would be paid their money and said company has also intended to pay 10% interest on delayed payment of customers. It is further averred that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and allegations made by her are incorrect. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                      Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, documents Ex C-2 to C-48 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                    No evidence is produced by counsel for OP-3 and 4 despite availing several opportunities for this purpose, therefore, vide order dated 11.08.2017, evidence of OP-3 and 4 was closed by order of this Forum.

8                                                      We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the  documents placed on record by parties.

9                                                     Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant is a housewife and she invested in five year plan of OPs by making savings from her household and as per plan, complainant had to pay Rs.1000/-every month upto five years i.e complainant had to pay total of Rs.60,000/-to OPs and at the end of term she was to get assured sum of Rs.88,000/-.  It is submitted that complainant paid all the instalments from 23.03.2012 to 23.10.2016 i.e she had paid more than 55,000/-to OPs, but from the last 3-4 months, Ops have refused to receive the instalment of scheme and have also refused to pay the amount of sum assured to complainant. Complainant made several requests to OPs take payment of remaining instalments and if they do not want to take remaining instalments, then pay the amount realizable to complainant by deducting the amount of instalments not paid by her. But OPs are neither accepting the instalments nor making payment of realizable amount. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment to complainant. She has prayed for accepting the complaint with directions to OPs to pay Rs.88,000/-as sum assured by them alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. She has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 48.

10                                                     As OP-3 and 4 did not produce any evidence, therefore, reply filed by them is considered as part of their arguments. As per reply of OP-3 and 4, complaint has not been properly verified as per rules and orders and it is liable to be dismissed. They have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and admitted that there was an agreement between complainant and OPs and also admitted that complainant was depositing instalments with them, but they refuted the allegation of complainant that OPs have refused to accept the remaining monthly instalments of said scheme. It is asserted that complainant herself denied to deposit the remaining instalments.  He further argued that their Company is intended to release the amount of its all customers from May, 2017 and in this regard, company has issued letter and list of customers, who would be paid their money and said company has also intended to pay 10% interest on delayed payment of customers. It is further averred that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and allegations made by her are incorrect. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                                               We have heard the counsel for complainant  and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence produced on record by complainant and OP-3 and 4. The case of the complainant is she invested in a five year plan of OPs by making savings from her household expenses. As per plan, she had to pay Rs.1000/-per month upto five years i.e total of Rs.60,000/-to OPs and at the end of term she was to get assured sum of Rs.88,000/-.  Complainant paid instalments from 23.03.2012 to 23.10.2016 i.e she had paid more than 55,000/-to OPs, but thereafter from the last 3-4 months, Ops refused to receive the instalment of scheme and have also refused to pay the amount of sum assured to complainant. Complainant made several requests to take payment of remaining instalments or to pay the amount realizable to complainant by deducting the amount of instalments not paid by her. But OPs neither accepted the instalments nor paid the realizable amount. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the contrary, there is nothing on record by OPs side to defend the allegations of complainant.

12                                   To prove this case, complainant has relied upon documents Ex C-2 that is a registration certificate issued by Ops to complainant, it clearly shows that there was an agreement between complainant and OPs. On the face of it, this documents states that as per agreement between complainant and OPs, complainant was bound to pay Rs.60,000/-through instalments of Rs.1000/-each every month and in lieu of receiving this amount, Ops assured to pay a sum of Rs.88,000/-to complainant. stamp of Ops on this document, proves the pleadings of complainant.  Copies of receipts Ex C-3 to 48 prove the fact that complainant has made payments of instalments to OPs for which they have issued receipts to her. Complainant has adduced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove this case. Documents produced by complainant seem to be authentic and there appears to be no doubt regarding the allegations of complainant. OPs are deficient in providing services to complainant and have also failed to keep their promise. Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties regarding agreement occurred between them or regarding deposit of instalments by complainant with them. Ops have themselves admitted that complainant was depositing monthly instalments with them, but it is denied by them that they ever refused to accept the instalment from complainant, rather complainant herself did not pay the remaining instalments.

13                                               We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments of Counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to pay Rs. 55,000/-to complainant on account of amount of instalments deposited by her with OPs alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of payment by complainant to them till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 5000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 17.08.2017

 

                                        Member                               President

                                     (P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)