Punjab

Sangrur

CC/522/2016

Gurdip Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emerging India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Kumar Satija

13 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 522

Instituted on:  01.09.2016

                                                                        Decided on:    13.12.2016

 

 

Gurdip Kaur aged about 65 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 Gurdip 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 investing an amount of Rs.50,000/- in single time investment (FDR) with OP number 1 at Sangrur vide registration number SP0007000647 on 5.10.2013 and on maturity the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.74,077/- on 4.10.2016 or to provide a plot of 1000 sq. feet.  Further case of the complainant is that on 10.6.2016  the complainant deposited the certificate with the Op number 1 vide acknowledgement dated 10.6.2016 for refund of the maturity 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.74,077/- 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 invested the amount and further deposited the policy papers with the  Ops. 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 4.10.2016 and the complainant could have filed the complaint against the OP two 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 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of acknowledgement and Ex.C-3 copy of policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-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 invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Ops and in turn the Ops issued the registration letter Ex.C-3, whereby it has been stated that the estimated realizable amount on maturity will be Rs.74,077/-, as is evident from the document i.e. copy of policy, which is on record as Ex.C-3. The complainant has further stated that though he submitted all the required documents with the Ops vide acknowledgement Ex.C-2, but the OPs have failed to repay the maturity amount of Rs.74,077/- to the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the Ops had sold the plot to the complainant of 1000 sq. ft and had not promised to pay the amount as stated above.  However, the estimated amount payable to the complainant was Rs.74,077/- as mentioned in the document Ex.C-3.  The fact remains that the Ops have neither offered any plot of 1000 sq. feet nor returned the amount of Rs.74,077/- in full nor gave any such a plot to the complainant. 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 promised amount on maturity 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 4.10.2016, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 1.9.2016. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops as it is the own case of the Ops in para 3(a) of the written reply that” the complainant could have filed the complaint against the opposite parties two months before expiry on the maturity”.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has filed within the stipulated period as stated above meaning thereby the complainant could have file the complaint even on 4.08.2016, whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 1.9.2016, as such, we feel that the complaint is not pre mature and the same is maintainable.  Further we may mention that even during the present proceedings, the Ops never offered any payment to the complainant as the policy has already matured on 04.10.2016.  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.74,077/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 04.10.2016 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 13, 2016.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member