DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 125/2015
Date of Institution : 01.07.2015
Date of Decision : 03.09.2015
Hardev Singh son of Nachattar Singh resident of Ward No. 6, Mohalla Kalan Daa, Near Bus Stand, Bhadaur, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. MGK Agriculture Holding Developers (India) Limited, Akalsar Chowk, Dosanj Road, Moga-142001, District Moga, through its Managing Director.
2. MGK Agriculture Holding Developers (India) Limited, Near Y.S. School, Sanjeev Book Depot Wali Gali, Bus Stand Road, Barnala Tehsil and Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. HS Walia counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Hardev Singh (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against MGK Agriculture Holding Developers (India) Limited and another (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the opposite parties allured and assured the complainant that in case he invests a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in their company then they will book a plot for him or in the alternative opposite parties will pay back a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- on 22.9.2014. The complainant consented to the proposal at Barnala and officials of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed papers without making known him the contents of the same on 22.9.2012 and issued an agreement deed No. 03581 dated 22.9.2012 and got deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant on 22.9.2012.
3. It is further averred that on 23.9.2014 the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 at Barnala and requested to pay the amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- but the concerned official assured the complainant to wait for two months and money will be paid to him. After two months the complainant again visited the office of the opposite parties but invain. It was alleged that the opposite parties constituted a company with intention to dupe the complainant and now the opposite parties back track from the agreement and in this way the complainant was cheated. It was further alleged that the complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties dated 20.5.2015 but the notice was returned with the report as unclaimed. It was alleged that the complainant being a consumer of the opposite parties and the act of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs directing the opposite parties.-
1) To pay the amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- alongwith interest with effect from 22.9.2014 till realization.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties have duly served but they have not come present despite their service, so they were proceeded exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipts Ex.C-3, copy of registration letter Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-1 has specifically stated that he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the assurance of the opposite parties that they would pay back a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- on 22.9.2014. The complainant further stated that on 23.9.2014 he visited the office of the opposite parties and requested to pay the said amount but the opposite parties asked him to wait for two months and thereafter he visited the office of the opposite parties time to time but all invain. He further stated that even despite legal notice sent to the opposite parties no payment was made. To support his case the complainant has placed on record legal notice Ex.C-2 sent to the opposite parties and agreement/ registration letter Ex.C-4. Perusal of the same shows that it was issued on 22.9.2012 in favour of the complainant Hardev Singh. It further shows that the complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- and estimated value is shown as Rs. 1,23,000/- and the expiry date of the agreement was 22.9.2014. On the other hand the opposite parties have not come present despite their service, therefore, the evidence led by the complainant is un-rebutted.
8. In case titled Y. Kanaka Reddy Versus Smt. D. Lakshmamma & Ors. Reported in I (2003) CPJ-232 (NC), it was observed that when the amount deposited under scheme and lumpsum payable and promised amount not paid then it was observed that deficiency in service proved and opposite party was held liable to refund deposited amount with interest.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the due date i.e. 22.09.2014 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1,100/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
3rd Day of September 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
I do agree
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
