Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/189

SIVENDERPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IT Sevices - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL CHAWLA

08 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       189

Date of Institution:   14.06.2017

Date of Decision :      8.01.2019

Sivenderpal Singh aged 62 years s/o Tara Singh, r/o Shaheed Balwinder Nagar, Street No. 1, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

1. I T Services, through its Authorized Person/Director, A-33, Royal Park, Pallavpuram, Phase-1, Meerut Cantt.
2. Tushar Sharma, Authorized Signatory/Authorized Person of IT Services, A-33, Royal Park, Pallavpuram, Phase-1, Meerut Cantt.
3. Rahul Mehta (Mobile No. 70653-09213)
4. Parbhat Gupta (Mobile No.96545-23328)
5. Nitin Patel (Mobile No.85860-47086)
6. Gulab Rai Khatri (Mobile No.95404-46053)
7. Balwant Moria (Mobile No.88267-12270)
8. Shalni Mishra (Mobile No.93118-30120)
9. Abishek Mittal (Mobile No.84599-17515)
10. Vipal Gosoami (Mobile No.78368-00204)
11. Jaswinder Singh (Mobile No.80850-68426)

All Executives of Tata AI Life, Sector-43, Chandigarh.

  ....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

        Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                 OPs-Ex parte.

                  

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- .

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant retired as Sr Assistant from the office of Controller, Legal Metrology, Mohali and before retirement, Op-2 to 11 approached complainant several times and persuaded him to invest his money in different companies including OP-1 and having trust in OPs, complainant deposited his hard earned money of Rs.4 lacs with OPs through NEFT from State Bank of India, Faridkot in IDBI bank account no.1253102000002523 of OP-1. It is submitted that before depositing the amount in the account of Ops, complainant received message from OP-4 on 18.02.2016 asking complainant to deposit the amount and he deposited Rs 4 lacs in the account of OPs on 19.02.2016.  Though complainant deposited the amount with Ops but he neither received any document nor any policy from OPs. On repeated requests by complainant to  send any policy document, OP-3 Rahul Mehta promised on oath that Policy would be issued to the complainant at the earliest at his residential place, but they did not released any policy or policy document or any such bond. Complainant also reported the matter to Police, but all in vain. Complainant has made several requests to OPs to issue policy document or to refund his amount, but now, OP-2 to 11 are insisting that to get refund of his amount, he will have to deposit Rs.7-8 lacs more otherwise his amount would be forfeited, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund his amount of Rs.4 lacs with interest at the rate of 18 % alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses incurred by him. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.06.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                     Notice was issued to OPs through registered post as well as publication. Despite service of summons alongwith copy of complaint and documents, OPs did not make appearance in the Forum either in person or through counsel. It is apparent that Ops are not interested in contesting the claim and are intentionally evading service. Therefore, vide order dated 15.09.2017, OPs are proceeded against exparte.                      

5                                                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                                 As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant advanced arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

7                                                                 The case of the complainants is that on persuasion of OP-2 to 10, complainant deposited his hard earned money of Rs.4 lacs with OPs through NEFT from State Bank of India, Faridkot in the IDBI bank account no.1253102000002523 of OP-1. It is submitted that before depositing the amount in the account of Ops, complainant received message from OP-4 on 18.02.2016 asking complainant to deposit the amount and he deposited Rs 4 lacs in the account of OPs on 19.02.2016. Complainant deposited the amount with Ops but he never received any document or any policy from OPs. Even despite repeated requests by complainant to send any policy document, he was not issued any document. OP-3 Rahul Mehta promised on oath that Policy would be issued to the complainant at the earliest at his residential place, but he did not release any policy or policy document or any such bond. Complainant also reported the matter to Police, but all in vain. Complainant has made several requests to OPs to issue policy document or to refund his amount, but now, OP-2 to 11 are insisting that to get refund of his amount, he will have to deposit some more money otherwise his amount would be forfeited, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund his amount of Rs4,00,000/-with interest and also prayed for compensation for harassment and for  litigation expenses incurred by him. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 4.

8                             To prove his case, complainant has relied upon his affidavit Ex C-1 which clears the point that complainant has been harassed by OPs financially as well as mentally. It narrates the entire grievance of complainant. Ex C-2 is the copy of computer generated Transactions Inquiry which reveals that Rs.4  lacs were transferred by complainant in the account of OP-1. Ex C-3 is statement of accounts of complainant, wherein it is clearly depicted that complainant deposited amount in dispute with OP-1

9                                                            After  careful  perusal of the record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 in not refunding the amount received from complainant. OP-1 and OP-2 have retained the huge amount of complainant for no reason and therefore, has been deficient in services and it amounts to trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 & 2. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence on record to prove his case. The authenticity of documents Ex C-2 Transaction Inquiry Report and Ex C-3 i.e statement of account released by bank to complainant is beyond doubt. It is crystal clear that complainant paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-with OP-1 through NEFT. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby  allowed against OP-1. It is observed that OP-3 to 11 have no role in fetching refund to complainant and therefore, complaint against OP-3 to 11 stands dismissed. OP-1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- i.e the amount deposited by complainant with OP-1 alongwith interest at the rate of  9 % per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till its final realization. OP-1 and OP-2 are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.3,000/-as litigation expenses.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant  shall be entitled to initiate  proceedings  under   section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 8.01.2019

                                                 Member                          President  

                                               (Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)