Complainants Mohinder Chand and Sakuntla Devi 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 matured amount of Rs.6,00,000/- against the plans to them, deposited against the plans alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of its maturity till its realization and opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony etc. alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that opposite parties approached them with the plan to invest their money for purchase of plot/fixed deposit. Accordingly, complainant no.1 and 2 jointly got a plan from the opposite parties. The details of plans are mentioned in the complaint. On 29.06.2017 i.e. the date of maturity of the plans they approached the opposite parties to make the payment as agreed by them in the terms of the policy but the opposite parties did not make the payment. They invested the amount with the opposite parties, thus they are consumers of the opposite parties. On 3.7.2017 they again approached the opposite party to make the payment invested amount at their registered office Gurdaspur with the all required documents demanded by them for payment of the said plans i.e. original certificates of agreements, discharge form, Identity Proofs and their bank account numbers and they gave a receipts of documents dated 3.7.2017 and assured that their claim amount will be come within a week but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, on 26.9.2017 Sh.B.S.Simble, Adv. has appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Sh.B.S.Dhakala, has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 but neither they appear in the Forum after 2.11.2017 nor file any reply to the complaint. On 10.01.2018, case called several times, but none had come present on their behalf, therefore, opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.01.2018.
4. Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
5. From the perusal of the file, we find that the complainant has simply tendered receipt cum unit certificate 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, we are unable to decide this case on merit. We find further, that the present parties 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 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 complainant to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction to avail of the prayed relief if he so desires or so advised.
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 18,2018. Member
*MK*
