Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 400

                                                                    Instituted on     : 22.09.2020

                                                                    Decided on       : 25.10.2023

Sh.Jagdish age 59 years, s/o Sh. Hukum Chand R/o Ward No.8, Sampla, Rohtak.

                                                                                       ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Director, Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited Regd. Office:195, Zone-1, in Front of DB Mall, M.P.Nagar, Madhya Pardesh-462011
2. Branch office: Branch Manager, Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited Above ICICI Bank, Main bazaar, Sampla, Rohtak.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Birbal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

ORDER

TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 29.02.2016 opposite party through agent approached to complainant to invest the money in his company. On assurance of best return of policy, complainant invested in  following policies of BB Super Plan of 36 months policy.   The detail of the same are given below:-

 It is further submitted that the officials of the opposite parties assured the complainant that all the payments will be made on date of maturity on demand. After the date of maturity, complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the amount invested in the respondent company and also submitted a claim form alongwith all relevant documents but till date no amount has been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests.. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.989268/-  alongwith interest @18% p.a. as per company policy till date, to pay Rs.500000/- on account of harassment and Rs.24000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite parties through registered post not received back. Track report also submitted by the counsel for the complainant regarding delivery of the items/notice but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 2 and as such opposite party No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.12.2021 of this Commission.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed his evidence on 25.02.2022.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 complainant had deposited different amounts under different Certificate No./Account No. through different transactions on dated 29.02.2016 and the date of the maturity of the alleged amount is also different. As per receipt Ex.C1, he deposited an amount of Rs.274238/-, as per receipt Ex.C2 he deposited Rs.277521/-, as per receipt Ex.C3 he deposited Rs.217737/- and  as per receipt Ex.C4 he deposited Rs.219672/-  with the opposite parties. After the maturity of alleged amount, he requested the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount but the alleged amount has not been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against exparte, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the alleged amount to the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 jointly & severally to pay the maturity amount of alleged scheme which is as under:-

To pay the maturity amount of Ex.C1 amounting to Rs.274338/-, Ex.C2 amounting to Rs.277521/-, Ex.C3 amounting to Rs.217737/- and  Ex.C4 amounting to Rs.219672/- total Rs. 989268/-(Rupees nine lac eighty nine thousand two hundred and sixty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 29.02.2016 to till its realization. Opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. 

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

25.10.2023.

                                                                        ..................................................................

                                                                        Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        …………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.