DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 624
Instituted on: 21.10.2016
Decided on: 06.04.2017
Ragvir Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh, resident of Village Ladda, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Kanakdhara Bullion Limited, Branch Office: SCO-1, First Floor, Kaula Park, Near Hotel Hot Chop, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. Kanakdhara Bullion Limited, Registered Office: 1166/1905/2, Kucha Mahajan Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006 through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri Kulvir Singh, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES : Shri Sukhwinder Pal, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Ragvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, the complainant availed the services of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in one time investment plan (FDR) i.e. single premium with OP number 1 at Sangrur against which the Op issued gold/silver accumulation certificate vide provisional booking number CKDS-12016004 dated 25.01.2016 for the period of six months and on maturity the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.1,23,547/- on 25.07.2016. The complainant also deposited the certificate in question with the Ops for payment of the maturity amount, but the Ops did not pay the amount despite repeated visits to the ops and further despite the fact that the period of maturity had already elapsed on 25.7.2016. Further case of the complainant is that he earlier also filed a complaint before this Forum, which was withdrawn on 19.9.2016 with liberty to file a fresh one. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.1,23,547/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 25.7.2016 till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has concealed the material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the Ops launched so many plans, but it has been denied that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with the Ops. However, it is admitted that the complainant had got booking for obtaining benefit under the golden silver accumulation policy only. Further in the reply the Ops have denied that the complainant deposited the whole amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with the Ops. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of envelope, Ex.C-7 copy of certified order dated 19.9.2016 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of certificate of incorporation and closed evidence.
4. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with the Ops and in turn the Ops issued the certificate Ex.C-2, whereby it has been stated that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in one instalment and the privilege value is Rs.1,23,547/- after the period of six months i.e. on 25.7.2016, as is evident from the document i.e. copy of accumulation certificate, which is on record as Ex.C-2. The complainant has further stated that though he submitted all the required documents with the Ops, but the OPs have failed to repay the maturity amount of Rs.1,23,547/- to the complainant, despite serving of legal notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued vehemently that the complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with the Ops, but we are unable to accept such a contention, when the certificate produced on record as Ex.C-2 clearly show that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with the Ops and in turn the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.1,23,547/- on 25.7.2016, but the same was not paid despite serving of legal notice upon the Ops. Further there is nothing on record produced by the Ops that how much amount was deposited by the complainant with the Ops. In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops are duty bound to return her the promised amount on maturity and by not doing so, the Ops are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
6. So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.1,23,547/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 25.07.2016 till realization and the complainant will surrender the original instrument (FDR) to the OP at the time of getting the payment. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3500/- on account of compensation and further Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Pronounced.
April 6, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
