Punjab

Sangrur

CC/531/2016

Gurdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emerging India Infra Developers Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Satija

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 531

Instituted on:  01.09.2016

                                                                        Decided on:    16.12.2016

 

 

Gurdeep Kaur aged about 64 years wife of Nirmal Singh, House No.585, Mubarak Mahil, Gali No.5, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

 

1.     Emerging India Infra and Developers Limited, 1^st Floor, Near Muthoot Finance, Roxy Road, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager Deepak Kumar.

2.     Emerging India Infra and Developers Limited, Regd. Office 408, 4^th Floor, E-2, Amarpali Plaza, Amarpali Circle Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, through its MD/GM/DGM Operation.

3.     Emerging India Infra and Developers Limited, Head Office SCO 46-47, Sec. 9-D, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Executive Director/Authorized Signatory.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Mahesh Satija, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri Parul Chawla, Advocate                     

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Smt Gurdeep Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, the complainant availed the services of the Ops by opening an account bearing registration number RP0018000349 for six years plan under which he started to deposit Rs.11,367/- per year with the date of commencement as 16.5.2011 and the date of expiry of the policy was 15.5.2017 and on maturity the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.1,05,253/- or to provide a plot of 1364 sq. feet.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited four instalments of Rs.11,367/- each and by this way he deposited the total amount of Rs.45,468/-. Further case of the complainant is that on 10.6.2016  the complainant deposited the original certificate with the Op number 1 vide acknowledgement dated 10.6.2016 for refund of the whole amount, but nothing was paid despite repeatedly visit to the Ops by the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.45,468/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it has been admitted that the complainant opened the account in question and invested the amount and further deposited the policy papers with the  Ops for refund of the amount so deposited. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied. It has been further stated that the policy of the complainant was to mature on 15.05.2017 and the complainant could have filed the complaint against the OPs eight months before expiry on the date of maturity, thus the present complaint is said to be premature, which has been filed on 31.8.2016. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 customer detail, Ex.C-3 copy of instalment receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of acknowledgement and Ex.C-5 copy of policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had opened an account under which he was to deposit an amount of Rs.11,367/- on yearly basis for six years and that the complainant deposited four instalments for Rs.11,367/- each and in total he deposited the amount of Rs.45,468/-  with the Ops, as is evident from the copy of document Ex.C-3. The complainant has further stated that though he submitted all the required documents with the Ops vide acknowledgement dated 10.6.2016 Ex.C-4, but the OPs have failed to repay the due amount along with interest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the Ops had sold the plot to the complainant and had not promised to pay the amount as stated above.  However, the estimated amount payable to the complainant was Rs.1,05,253/- on completion of the policy as mentioned in the document Ex.C-5 on maturity. But, the fact remains that the Ops have neither offered any plot of 1364 sq. feet nor returned even the amount so deposited by the complainant along with interest. Further, no document has been produced by the OPs to show that they have  purchased any land for allotment to the complainant. In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops are duty bound to return him the deposited amount along with interest and by not doing to the Ops are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

 

6.             Further the Ops have taken an objection that the complaint is premature one as the policy was to mature on 15.05.2017, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 1.9.2016. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops as the Ops have themselves failed to establish on record that they purchased any land for the complainant nor the Ops have produced any other document on record to support their contention in the written reply.  Now, the fact remains that the amount of Rs.45,468/- of the complainant is lying with the Ops, which the Ops are liable to return to the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not do so. As such, we feel that the objection of the Ops that the complaint is premature falls flat.

 

 

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.45,468/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.09.2016 till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3500/- on account of compensation and further Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

Pronounced.

 

                December 16, 2016.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member