Punjab

Gurdaspur

CC/455/2017

1.Mohan Lal 2.Reeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

KIM INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Munish Kumar, Adv.

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURDASPUR
DISTRICT COURTS, JAIL ROAD, GURDASPUR
PHONE NO. 01874-245345
 
Complaint Case No. CC/455/2017
( Date of Filing : 23 Aug 2017 )
 
1. 1.Mohan Lal 2.Reeta
S/o Swaran Dass R/o vill Kaunta P.O Khojepur Teh and distt Gurdaspur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. KIM INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS LTD.
office 1311-A Hemkunt House 6 Rajendra Place New Delhi through its Authorized signatory
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Naveen Puri PRESIDENT
  Smt. Jagdeep Kaur MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sh.Munish Kumar, Adv., Advocate
For the Opp. Party: OPs. No.1 and 3 exparte. OP. No.2 given up., Advocate
Dated : 16 Jul 2018
Final Order / Judgement

 Complainant  Mohan Lal and Reeta have filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay the surrender value amount against the plan to them, deposited against the plan alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of its maturity till its realization and opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony etc. alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainants in brief is that opposite parties approached them with the plan to invest their money for purchase of plot. The opposite parties declared that if they will not be interested in purchasing plot then they can get the amount against the plot as mentioned in the policy. Accordingly, they got two plans from the opposite parties for themselves. The details of plans are mentioned in the complaint.  The abovesaid plans are still continue and pending and they do not want to proceed further with the abvoesaid plans and as such on 3.8.2017 they approached the opposite partyno.3 to surrender the policies of the abovesaid plans as they were in dire need of money but the opposite party no.3 had not accepted his genuine requests and linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter till today the opposite parties are lingering upon the matter on one pretext or the other. They approached the opposite party no.3 to surrender the policy as they were in dire need of money, but they did not bother their genuine requests. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

3.           Upon notice, on 12.10.2017 Sh.B.S.Simble, Adv. has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 and Sh.B.S.Dhakala, has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2. On 17.1.2018, case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 3, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. On 23.4.2018, the opposite party no.2 was given up by making statement of complainant.

4.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 and of Reeta wife of Mohan Lal Ex.C-2 alongwith other documents Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

5.       From the perusal of the file, we find that the complainants have simply tendered a Certificate Ex.C3 and a Receipt Cum Unit Certificate Ex.C4 without attaching any terms and conditions of the plans or copy of agreement if any executed between the parties from where it can be gathered under what circumstances and under what terms and conditions the certificate of investment was issued. In the absence of terms and conditions of the alleged offered plan on record, we are unable to decide this case on merit. We find further, that the present complainants  here, have somehow, not produced cogently full ‘evidence’ sufficient to judiciously adjudicate the popped out dispute under the ‘summary procedure’ as statutorily prescribed under the applicable Act and as such the pre-existing anomalies may not be fairly wrinkled out. The non-mention of details of Investment Plan etc on the investment certificate along with some other queries need be further clarified through cross-examination/additional evidence etc.  To sum it up, we are of the considered opinion that it shall not be judiciously fair to adjudicate the present complaint under the Act with the evidence as available on record and thus we are not inclined to divulge even a part of our findings lest it may not prejudice the legal rights of the participating litigants down the lane.          

6.       In the light of the all above, we dispose of the present complaint by directing the complainants to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction to avail of the prayed relief if he so desires or so advised.  Disposed off accordingly.

7.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.

 

ANNOUNCED:                                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 16,2018.                                                                   Member                    

*MK*

 

 
 
[ Sh. Naveen Puri]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Smt. Jagdeep Kaur]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.