DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: 411/2015
Date of Institution: 24.08.2015
Date of Decision: 23.10.2015
Karnail Singh son of Mehar Singh resident of H.No. 151, Patti Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, through his Power of Attorney Suresh Kumar son of Darshan Kumar resident of C/o Shiva Stationary, Handiaya Bazar, Opposite Public Laboratory, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Emerging India Infra and Developers Limited, Head Office SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through Authorized Signatory/Managing Director Lakhwinder Singh.
2. Emerging India Infra and Developers Limited, Opposite Decent Hotel, Barnala, now opposite Amar Colony, Street No. 1, 1st Floor of Orange Showroom, Rambagh Road, Barnala, through Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI KARNAIL SINGH MEMBER):
The complainant namely Karnail Singh son of Mehar Singh through his Power of Attorney Suresh Kumar son of Darshan Kumar (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against Emerging India Infra Developers Limited & Ors.(hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant has invested a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash with the opposite parties as Fixed Deposit on 25.2.2014 and it was agreed between the opposite parties that they will give an estimated sum of Rs. 3,33,000/- to the complainant on 22.1.2015 and accordingly the opposite parties have issued a policy cum registration letter in this regard bearing serial No. 34758. It is further averred that on 23.1.2015 the complainant according to the agreement and terms and conditions submitted the registration letter cum policy in the office of the opposite party No. 2 for the release of estimated value of Rs. 3,33,000/-. The opposite party No. 2 issued a receipt to the complainant and the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 verbally told to the complainant that the payment will be made within few days. After some days, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No. 2 for collecting the said amount. But the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to come in the next week and thereafter in partial discharge of above said liability, the opposite parties issued a cheque No. 971545 dated 11.5.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1,18,000/- in favour of the complainant. But the said cheque was dishonored with the remarks of “Funds Insufficient”. In this regard a criminal complaint U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is pending in the Court of JMIC, Barnala. It is further averred that out of the said amount of Rs. 3,33,000/-, the opposite parties paid Rs. 49,900/- to the complainant on 21.7.2015. The complainant again visited the opposite party No. 2 and demanded the remaining amount, but all in vain. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To make the payment as per the agreement of Rs. 1,65,010/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were duly served, but they did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Suresh Kumar Ex.C-1, copy of power of attorney Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3, copy of cheque dated 11.5.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of memo PNB Ex.C-5, copy of complaint U/s 138 Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
6. In affidavit Ex.C-1, the special power of attorney appeared on behalf of Karnail Singh has specifically stated that the opposite party No. 2 failed to pay the remaining amount of the policy i.e. Rs. 1,65,010/- despite visiting the opposite party No. 2 several times and it is a unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Ex.C-3 is the policy issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant Karnail Singh, which shows the maturity amount to the tune of Rs. 3,33,000/- and date of maturity as 22.1.2015. Ex.C-4 is the copy of cheque in favour of Karnail Singh of Rs. 1,18,000/-. The complainant has also admitted the receiving of Rs. 49,990/- on 21.7.2015.
7. On the other hand there is nothing on record to indicate that the policy issued by the opposite parties was not genuine.
8. In case titled Y. Kanaka Reddy Versus Smt. D. Lakshmamma & Ors. Reported in I (2003) CPJ-232 (NC), it was observed that when the amount deposited under scheme and lumpsum payable and promised amount not paid then it was observed that deficiency in service proved and opposite party was held liable to refund deposited amount with interest.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,65,010/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of maturity. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation and Rs. 2,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of October 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
