Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Sukhwinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that for investment/ saving purposes, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 who is a neighbourer of the complainant and also employee of Post Office Department and the opposite party No. 2 suggested the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 is a sister concern of the post office department and is a very good establishment and gives good returns on the investments and savings and as such, the complainant should invest with the opposite party No. 1 and also assured that he is fully responsible for the saving and investments of the complainant. On the assurance of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant opted for investment/ saving with the opposite party No. 1 and as per the terms and conditions, the complainant was to deposit Rs. 1,000/- per month for 84 month and as such after 84 months for depositing Rs. 84,000/- the complainant will get Rs. 1,35,000/- after 28.2.2018 i.e. the last date of installment and maturity of the investment certificate and as such, the complainant acted as per the terms and conditions and the opposite parties issued the number of the scheme/ agreement/ certificate No. 0101R0025297 dated 10.3.2011 as such deposited Rs. 1,000/- per month for 84 months with the opposite party No. 1 through the opposite party No 2 and the opposite party No. 2 issued receipts of payments of these installments. During the payments, the opposite party No. 2 continued gave assurance to the complainant regarding the credibility and security of investment of the complainant with the opposite party No.1. After the payment of the last installment with the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for getting the payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the opposite party No. 1, the opposite party No. 2 received the original policy and issued a receipt of the same while sitting at the post office and assured the complainant that Rs. 1,35,000/- will be paid to him in a week time, so the complainant waited for the payment. After the lapse of about 10 days, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for receiving the payment, the opposite party No. 2 again told that it will be made in few days time and opposite party no. 2 is answering the same about 1½ years back and as such, no payment was made by the opposite party No. 2 to the complainant till date. The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs may be allowed:-
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to immediately release payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant as per certificate/ agreement No. 0101R0025297 dated 10.3.2011
- An amount of Rs. 30,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant maybe allowed
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of receipt cum unit certificate Ex. C-2, self attested copy of receipt document Ex. C-3.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties . But later on the complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant against the opposite party No. 1
3 The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complainant is not consumer of opposite party No. 2. Neither the opposite party No. 2 has provided any service to the complainant nor has obtained any money consideration for any service or product from the complainant as such, the complainant does not fall within definition of consumer as provided the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such the complainant has no right to file the complaint against the opposite party No.2. The present complaint is barred by law of limitation. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 to file the present complaint against him. The complaint is also bad for misjoinder of necessary and proper party as opposite party No. 2 has been unnecessarily made party. The complainant has intentionally suppressed material facts of the previous enmity in between the complainant as based his complaint is false fact. The complainant has no jurisdiction to file the present complaint as opposite party No. 1 is neither resident of Tarn Taran nor has any alleged office or branch in Tarn Taran. On merits, it was pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 has neither any concern with the complainant nor the opposite party No. 2 is least concerned with the opposite party No. 1 nor with his business. The opposite party No. 2 has no concern with the opposite party No. 1 as such, the opposite party No. 2 has no knowledge about the alleged agreement dated 10.3.2011. The complainant never gave any amount to the opposite party No. 2 to deposit the same with the opposite party No.1. Nor the opposite party No. 2 ever issued any alleged receipt to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite party No. 2 and controverted the stand taken in the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that for investment/ saving purposes, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 who is a neighbourer of the complainant and also employee of Post Office Department and the opposite party No. 2 suggested the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 is a sister concern of the post office department and is a very good establishment and gives good returns on the investments and savings. The complainant should invest with the opposite party No. 1 and also assured that he is fully responsible for the saving and investments of the complainant. He further contended that on the assurance of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant opted for investment/ saving with the opposite party No. 1 and as per the terms and conditions, the complainant was to deposit Rs. 1,000/- per month for 84 month and as such after 84 months for depositing Rs. 84,000/- the complainant will get Rs. 1,35,000/- after 28.2.2018 i.e. the last date of installment and maturity of the investment certificate. The complainant acted as per the terms and conditions and the opposite parties issued the number of the scheme/ agreement/ certificate No. 0101R0025297 dated 10.3.2011 as such deposited Rs. 1,000/- per month for 84 months with the opposite party No. 1 through the opposite party No 2 and the opposite party No. 2 issued receipts of payments of these installments. He further contended that during the payments, the opposite party No. 2 continued gave assurance to the complainant regarding the credibility and security of investment of the complainant with the opposite party No.1. After the payment of the last installment with the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for getting the payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the opposite party No. 1, the opposite party No. 2 received the original policy and issued a receipt of the same while sitting at the post office and assured the complainant that Rs. 1,35,000/- will be paid to him in a week time. The complainant waited for the payment. After the lapse of about 10 days, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for receiving the payment, the opposite party No. 2 again told that it will be made in few days time and opposite party No. 2 is answering the same about 1½ years back and as such, no payment was made by the opposite party No. 2 to the complainant till date and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
7 Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complainant is not consumer of opposite party No. 2. Neither the opposite party No. 2 has provided any service to the complainant nor has obtained any money consideration for any service or product from the complainant. The complainant does not fall within definition of consumer as provided the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has no right to file the complaint against the opposite party No.2. The present complaint is barred by law of limitation. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 to file the present complaint against him. The complaint is also bad for misjoinder of necessary and proper party as opposite party No. 2 has been unnecessarily made party. The complainant has no jurisdiction to file the present complaint as opposite party No. 1 is neither resident of Tarn Taran nor has any alleged office or branch in Tarn Taran. The opposite party No. 2 has neither any concern with the complainant nor the opposite party No. 2 is least concerned with the opposite party No. 1 nor with his business. The opposite party No. 2 has no concern with the opposite party No. 1 as such, the opposite party No. 2 has no knowledge about the alleged agreement dated 10.3.2011. The complainant never gave any amount to the opposite party No. 2 to deposit the same with the opposite party No.1. Nor the opposite party No. 2 ever issued any alleged receipt to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the same.
8 In the present case, for investment/ saving purposes, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 who is a neighbourer of the complainant and also employee of Post Office Department and the opposite party No. 2 suggested the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 is a sister concern of the post office department and is a very good establishment and gives good returns on the investments and savings. On the assurance of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant opted for investment/ saving with the opposite party No. 1. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant was to deposit Rs. 1,000/- per month for 84 month and as such after 84 months for depositing Rs. 84,000/- the complainant will get Rs. 1,35,000/- after 28.2.2018 i.e. the last date of installment and maturity of the investment certificate and as such, the complainant acted as per the terms and conditions and the opposite parties issued the number of the scheme/ agreement/ certificate No. 0101R0025297 dated 10.3.2011. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,000/- per month for 84 months with the opposite party No. 1 through the opposite party No 2 and the opposite party No. 2 issued receipts of payments of these installments. During the payments, the opposite party No. 2 continued gave assurance to the complainant regarding the credibility and security of investment of the complainant with the opposite party No.1. After the payment of the last installment with the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for getting the payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 but no amount has been paid to the complainant .
9 Perusal of file shows that the complainant has the complainant has invested the amount with the opposite party No. 1 and prayer of the complainant is that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to immediately release payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant as per certificate/ agreement No. 0101R0025297 dated 10.3.2011. During the pendency of the present case, the complainant has withdrawn the present complaint against the opposite party No. 1. As per allegations in the complaint, the complainant has deposited the amount with the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has denied that he has received any payment. The present complaint against the original party i.e. opposite party 1 has been withdrawn by the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint has become defective and is not maintainable.
10 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
16.12.2022
