BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.427 of 2018
Date of Instt. 09.10.2018
Date of Decision: 29.12.2020
1. Harbans Kaur Age 68 years W/o Lachman Singh R/o H. No.1019, Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar-144001 (Formerly r/o V.Nawan Kila, PO Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar) Mobile Phone No.8264563276, 9815304632.
2. Ranjit Kaur Age 46 years W/o Ajinder Singh, R/o H. No.1019, Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar-144001. (Formerly r/o V.Nawan Kila, PO Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar) Mobile Phone No.8264563276, 9815304632.
..........Complainants
Versus
Harinder Investment Limited, 1st Floor, Near Hotel Kings, G. T. Road, Jalandhar. Through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Representative.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Sumit Verma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainants.
OP exparte.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that the OP is a Finance Company, engaged in the business of accepting deposits from the public. That the complainant No.1 was allured tempted, induced and perused by OP for investment by deposit of money on interest to earn their livelihood to augment their meager income to make both ends meet. The complainant No.1 is the senior citizens having old age of 68 years. That the complainants believing the sweet words and assurance given by OP, invested with OP a sum of Rs.22,222/- on 16.05.2015 @ 11% PA for 36 months which matured on 16.05.2018 with maturity value of Rs.30,864/- vide FDR No.15631. That in the present complaint, the name of the complainant No.2 has been added in FDRs Annexure C-1 only to avoid technicalities. Complainant No.2 Ranjit Kaur is Daughter-in-law of complainant No.1 in Annexure C-1 whose name has been added in the said FDRs to avoid technicalities. The affidavit of complainant No.2 (Ranjit Kaur) duly attested relinquished all interest and rights whatsoever in favour of complainant No.1 attached as Annexure C-A as the complainant No.1 (Harbans Kaur) is the sole investor and subsequent party to get released the interest and the investments. That the complainant No.1 is senior citizen having old age of 68 years. The complainant visited the OP several times to get the matured amount of above said FDRs, but every time the OP put the complainant on one pretext or other and ignored to give the payment of above said mature FDRs. That on 12.09.2018 the complainant sent a registered legal notice to OP through her advocate requesting to give the payment of above said matured FDRs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainants may be accepted and OP be directed to pay the matured amount of FDR vide No.15631 i.e. Rs.30,864/- and further OP be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- and compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.
2. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP and OP was declared to have been duly served, but none appeared on behalf of the OP and consequently, OP was proceeded against exparte, vide detailed order dated 20.11.2018.
3. In order to prove her exparte claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with some documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. From the perusal of the pleadings of the complainants, it is clear that complainant No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.22,222/-, vide FDR No.15631 on 16.05.2015 with maturity value of Rs.30,864/-, which is evident from Ex.C-1. Now question remains whether the complainants virtually ever approached to the OP for making the payment of said matured FDR, regarding that a legal notice served by the complainants on 12.09.2018 and in response to the legal notice, the OP did not bother to pay the matured amount. If the OP ready to make the payment, then why the OP did not give offer to complainants to get the payment of the matured FDRs.
6. Apart from that the Photostat copy of the FDR available on the file Ex.C-1 having No.15631 dated 16.05.2015 and the maturity value is Rs.30,864/- and maturity date 16.05.2018. There is not iota of documents available on the file, served by the OP to the complainants that their FDR is matured and get the payment, so, it means the OP also did not call upon the complainants to get the payment of matured FDRs. So, under these circumstances and unrebutted evidence, we find that the OP himself is negligent for not paying the maturity amount despite repeated request of the complainants, which is tantamount to deficiency in service and accordingly, we reached to the conclusion that the complainants are entitled for the relief claimed.
7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainants is partly accepted and OP is directed to reimburse the maturity amount of the FDR i.e. Rs.30,864/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of maturity, till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Kuljit Singh
29.12.2020 Member President
