BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.465 of 2018
Date of Instt. 12.11.2018
Date of Decision: 20.04.2021
1. Lachman Singh Age 72 years S/o Gurbax Singh, R/o H. No.1019, Sant Nagar, Ladowali Raod, Jalandhar-144001 Mobile Phone No.8264563276, 9815304632
2. Harleen Kaur (Grand daughter of Lachhman Singh)
3. Manpreet Singh (Minor) {Grand son of Lachhman Singh} Through Mother Ranjit Kaur.
4. Ranjit Kaur (D-in-law of Lachman Singh) W/o Ajinder Singh,
All residents of 1019, Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.
..........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.
Sh. R. K. Kashyap, Adv. Counsel for the OP.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that the complainant No.1 was allured tempted, induced and persuaded by OP for investment by deposit of money on interest to earn her livelihood to augment their meager income to make both ends meet. The complainant No.1 believing the sweet words and assurance given by OP, invested with OP a sum of Rs.38,581/- on 23.12.2014 @ 11% PA for 36 months which matured on 23.12.2017 with maturity value of Rs.53,585/- vide FDR No.15356. That again complainant No.1 invested with OP a sum of Rs.20,833/- on 03.07.2015 @ 11% PA for 36 months which matured on 03.07.2018 with maturity value of Rs.28,935/- vide FDR No.15765. That the complainant No.1 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 matured 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 amount of FDR Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 Rs.82,520/- and further OP be directed to give interest @ 11% per annum till realization and further OP be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- and compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the Director of the Company specifically. The present complaint is time barred considering the original deposit of amount with the OP vide FDR No.12943 dated 23.12.2011. FDR No.13170 dated 03.07.2012. It is further alleged that the issue involved in the present complaint is of commercial nature and governed by the rules and regulations of Reserve Bank of India as such, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, are not attracted in the present case. That the issue involved is of commercial nature and required to be proved by leading cogent evidence as per the provisions of India Evidence Act, thus, only the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had invested with OP in the shape of FDRs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.
6. From the perusal of the pleadings of the complainants, it is clear that complainant No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.38,581/-, vide FDR No.15356 on 23.12.2014 with maturity value of Rs.53,585 on 23.12.2017 and again complainant No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.20,833/-, vide FDR No.15765 on 03.07.2015 with maturity value of Rs.28,935/- on 03.07.2018, which is evident from Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2. Now question remains whether the complainants virtually ever approached to the OP for making the payment of said matured FDRs, regarding that a legal notice served by the complainant 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.
7. Apart from that the photostat copy of the FDRs available on the file Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2. There is not iota of documents available on the file, served by the OP to the complainants that their FDRs are matured and get the payment, so, it means the OP also did not call upon the complainants to get the payment of matured FDRs.
8 On the other hand, the counsel for the OP in his written reply only taking simple preliminary objections and nothing mentioned about giving of matured FDRs amount to the complainant and also brought on the file one affidavit Ex.OPA, Certificate of incorporation of Harinder Leasing Ltd. as Ex.OP-1, Copy of Resolution Ex.OP-2 and Copy of Letter issued by RBI Ex.OP-3. Here one document is very important i.e. Ex.OP-3 letter of RBI, in which the Reserve Bank of India had cancelled the licence of Harinder Leasing Ltd. and directed to the OP as under:-
“You are directed to advise your depositors, if any, of cancellation of the certificate of registration by Reserve Bank of India. The depositors should also be advised of the plan of action for repayment of their deposits, if any, by your company as contracted. Non-compliance with the above instructions shall attract penal action under RBI Act, 1934.”
“You should, however, note that your company still continues to be governed by the relevant provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and various directions/instructions issued by RBI from time to time until such time the entire amount of public deposits, if any, held by your company is fully repaid with interest. Accordingly, you should continue to repay the deposits, if any, on the due dates and dispose of the financial assets within three years from the date of the cancellation of certificate of registration. You are also directed to submit yearly return in the form of NBS-4 furnishing therein the information on repayment of public deposits, if any, and other aspects of your NBFC activities.
In this letter, RBI cancelled the certificate of registration and directed to repay with interest to the depositors, but the OP failed to do so. So, under these circumstances, 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.
9. 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 all the FDRs i.e. in total Rs.82,520/- 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 and spread of Covid-19.
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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
20th of April 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
