Delhi

North East

CC/341/2022

Pooja - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICL Mutual Benefits Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 341/22

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Pooja W/o Sh. Ram Prakash R/o  H 98, Sundar Nagri, Delhi-110093		Complainant
		Versus
		ICL Mutual Benefits Corporation Ltd. Corporate Office:- 41 C, Gandhi Nagar, Opp Pancham MRI Center Bareilly, India 243001		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		22.08.22 15.09.23 06.11.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant has purchased a Recurring deposit policy from Opposite Party in April, 2015 and had to pay Rs. 1,000/-per month for 60 months. It is stated that the said policy matured in April, 2020. Subsequently, the Complainant had to receive Rs.83,339/-with interest after maturity from Opposite Party. The Complainant alleged that Opposite Party company did not pay the Complainant the above amount and without intimation deposited her money in fixed deposit. After that, the Complainant talked to customer care of Opposite Party company and also called their agent to get her money but no satisfactory response was received by Complainant. The Complainant stated that she had also talked to director of Opposite Party Company about her money but no satisfactory response has been received till date. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,20,000/- as the deposited amount with the Opposite Party alongwith interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 02.12.22.

Ex-parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant, in support of her complaint, filed herevidence by way of affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the authorized representative ofthe Complainant and also perused the material on record. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant has purchased a Recurring deposit policy from Opposite Party in April, 2015 and had to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month for 60 months. It is stated that the said policy matured in April, 2020. Subsequently, the Complainant had to receive Rs. 83,339/- after maturity from Opposite Party. The Complainant alleged that Opposite Party Company did not pay the Complainant the above maturity amount and without intimation deposited her money in fixed deposit. The grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has not paid the maturity amount under the subject policy till date.
5. We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file. We observed that the Complainant has supported her contentions with documentary evidence namely recurring deposit document issued by the Opposite Party in the name of the Complainant and also the receipts of the monthly instalments for 60 months which were paid by the Complainant. It is evident from the documents produced that the Complainant became entitled to the maturity amount of Rs. 83,339/- in the month of April, 2020. The Complainant has also produced the emails written to the Opposite Party asking for the refund of the maturity amount. It is evident from the material on record that the Opposite Party issued the subject recurring deposit plan and the Complainant had become entitled to the maturity amount by having paid all the instalments as required.
6.  The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by her affidavit and documents filed by her. As the Opposite party has not put in appearance in spite of notice and failed to file their version, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath.
7. In view of the above discussion and un-rebutted testimony of the Complainant, the present complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 83,339/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of maturity i.e.11.04.2020 till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental harassment to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
8. Order announced on 06.11.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)            Member

(Adarsh Nain)         Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President