DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  631

                                                Instituted on:    25.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.03.2017

Mehar Singh aged about 70 years son of Minder Singh, resident of VPO Manvi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Ken Infratech Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Railway Road, New Shopping Complex, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

2.     Ken Infratech Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. Office 3413, Mahindra Park, Rani Bagh, New Delhi-110 034.

3.     Ken Infratech Ltd. through its Managing Director, Corporate Office, Hari Nagar, Near Anaj Mandi, Ferozpur City-152 002.      

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For Opp. Parties       :       Exparte.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Mehar 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 the complainant availed the services of the Ops by opting an investment plan whereby the complainant had to pay 96 instalments of Rs.990/- each and in lieu of that the Ops had to pay Rs.1,76,000/- or can get a plot measuring 1760 square yards  on the date of maturity of the policy. The complainant opened the account with the Ops in December, 2011.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops got deposited only 52 instalments up to March, 2016 and thereafter the complainant approached the Ops to deposit further instalments, but the Ops refused to do so.  As such, the complainant requested the Ops to refund the due amount along with interest, but all in vain.  The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 19.9.2016 upon the Ops through his counsel, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.95,333/- and further claimed compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the Ops did not appear despite publication in the newspaper, as such, the Ops were proceeded exparte on 23.02.2017.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of certificate dated 29.12.2011, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8 copies of receipts, Ex.C-9 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 copies of postal receipts and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also 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 complainant, we find that the complainant had opened an account having registration number 0900003830 dated 29.12.2011 under which he had to deposit an amount of Rs.990/- per month for 96 months and in lieu of that the Ops had to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- on maturity, but the case of the complainant is that the Ops got deposited only 52 instalments.  In the present case, the Ops are exparte.  We have perused the whole record and find that the complainant had produced on record receipt Ex.C-3, wherein it shows that the complainant deposited instalment number 49 on 21.01.2016 and the complainant has not produced any such receipt showing any deposit thereafter with the Ops.  The Ops have produced nothing on record to show that they did not discontinue the scheme. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops failed to continue the scheme and got deposited only 49 instalments of Rs.990/- each meaning thereby the complainant deposited Rs.48510/- with the Ops in 49 instalments on various dates.    The fact remains that the Ops have either to continue the scheme in question or in the alternative to refund the due amount of Rs.48,510/- so deposited with the Ops along with the interest. 

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.48,510/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.10.2016 till realisation. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.5000/- 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.

                March 20, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member