DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 663/2016
Date of Institution : 19.10.2016
Date of Decision : 09.03.2018
Babu Singh s/o Sh. Dyal Singh resident of Village Sukhpura Maur, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Future Choice, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Head Office, Gaushala Road, Grain Market, Barnala.
2. Future Choice having its branch office adjacent to Temple and Gaushala Road, Grain Market, Barnala, District Barnala through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. Tara Singh s/o Chand Singh s/o Mehar Singh resident of Patti Chahar Village Dhillwan Patiala, Tehsil Tapa District Barnala, Punjab (Mobile No. 94634-65693).
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Eshan Menon counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 exparte.
Sh. Harpreet Singh counsel for opposite party No. 3.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI SUKHPAL SINGH GILL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Babu Singh son of Dyal Singh has filed the present complaint against M/s Future Choice, Barnala and others under Consumer Protection Act.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the opposite party No. 3 working under the opposite party No. 2 being its agent rendering the services of investment to the General Public by offering various schemes including Investment Plans and opposite party No. 3 offered investment plans having flexi period 15 months, flexi period 4 years by paying 4% interest per month from the date of investment to the complainant. Relying upon the same the complainant accepted the plans and it was agreed that the complainant shall pay the amount in cash to the opposite parties who shall issue units in the name of complainant and at the end of term the complainant will get the investment amount including the interest @ 4% per month from the date of investment or as and when demanded by the complainant the said amount will be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 4% per month from the date of investment. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the opposite parties on 31.12.2013 and policy receipt under the investment plan was issued to the complainant mentioning Account No. 440270, Investment Units 900 Plan, Flexi Period 4 years, Deposit date 31.12.2013 and commencement date 10.1.2014. Similarly, the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the opposite parties on 31.12.2013 and policy receipt under the investment plan was issued to the complainant mentioning Account No. 602026, Investment Units 1200 Plan, Flexi Period 4 years, deposit date 31.12.2013 and commencement date 10.1.2014. Further, the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the opposite parties on 31.5.2014 and policy receipt under the investment plan was issued to the complainant mentioning Account No. 568216, Investment Units 3900 Plan, Flexi Period 15 months, deposit date 31.5.2014 and commencement date 31.5.2014 (wrongly mentioned rather it should be 31.8.2015). The complainant performed his part and made the payment of investment.
3. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 on 2.9.2015 and showed the receipt dated 31.12.2013 but opposite parties lingered on the matter for some days. Thereafter, complainant made many visits to the office of opposite party No. 2 but in vain. Lastly on 16.10.2016 the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and showed the receipts dated 31.12.2013 and 31.5.2014 issued to him for the refund the invested amount alongwith interest @ 4% per month from the date of investment but they did not gave any satisfactory answer to the complainant and told him that as and when they have the payment the same will be disbursed to him and did not pay a single penny to the complainant till now. Therefore, the said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties . Hence the complainant filed the present complaint seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed jointly and severally to disburse the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest up to date at the rate of 4% per month from the date of investment.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 did not appear before this Forum despite service through publication so vide order dated 22.12.2017 the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
5. The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Further, the complainant has not come with clean hands so he is not entitled for any relief. Further, present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of part as the answering opposite party wrongly impleaded in the complaint who is not the employee/agent of opposite party No. 2 nor any receipts have been issued by him.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the answering opposite party was/is not working under opposite party No. 2 being its agent. It is denied that the answering opposite party ever assured to the complainant that the invested amount will be refunded to him alongwith interest at the rate of 4% per month. It is also denied that complainant ever paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the answering opposite party on 31.12.2013 as alleged for the said policies. The said receipts were not issued by the answering opposite party nor it bears the signatures of the answering opposite party. These receipts have been forged and fabricated by the complain. Further, these receipts do not bear the signature and stamp of any person. The complainant never met the answering opposite party regarding any refund as the answering opposite party has no concern with the matter. The complainant has concocted a false story for filing the present complaint. So, the present complaint may be dismissed with costs against answering opposite party.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Tara Singh Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 and have gone through the record on the file.
10. We have perused all the record on the file produced by the complainant. In support of his case the complainant tendered only four documents in which one is his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1. In his detailed affidavit he reiterated all his case as mentioned in the complaint and not any new thing in this detailed affidavit Ex.C-1.
11. Apart from his affidavit the complainant only filed three photocopies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 which are main documents of his case. In these documents the name of the complainant is mentioned alongwith his Account No. 602026, 568216 and 440270 respectively. The name of complainant, his father and his mobile number is also mentioned in these receipts. Further the name of the nominee Baljeet Kaur and her relation with the complainant is mentioned. Further, in these receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 it is also mentioned that he has chosen Units 1200 Plan Flexi period 4 years, Units 3900 Plan Flexi Period 15 months and Units 900 Plan Flexi Period 4 years respectively. Further, the deposit date and commencement date is also mentioned on these receipts. In the last of these receipts FMC charges of 12 Units, 39 Units and 9 Units are also mentioned. But the most important thing i.e amount of these plans and price of units is not mentioned in any of these receipts. Even it is not mentioned that how much amount the opposite parties have received from the complainant and what is the value of one unit. Further, these documents have no signatures of any person or stamp of any company what to talk of the persons mentioned in the list of the opposite parties. So, these documents have no value in the eye of law as no amount is mentioned on these documents and these documents having no signatures of any person. We cannot believe that the complainant paid the huge amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only against these receipts where no amount or price of unit is mentioned. Except these receipts no other document has been tendered by the complainant in his evidence. As such in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the complainant is failed to prove his case.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint has no merit and same is dismissed. However, no order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th Day of March 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
