DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 197/2015
Date of Institution : 17.07.2015
Date of Decision : 23.10.2015
Mukesh Kumar Mahto aged about 31 years son of Sh. Khantar Mahto of Jailakh Shakarpura, Anchal Bakhri Bazaar, Distt. Begusarai Bihar now residing at Raikot Road, Near Trident Factory, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Modern Vision Ladmark & Infrastructure Ltd., Head Office 9 KM Stone, Hansi Road, Prem Nagar, Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana) through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. Modern Vision Ladmark & Infrastructure Ltd., Branch Office at Dhanaula Road, Near Railway Crossing, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for the complainant
Opposite party No. 1 deleted.
Opposite party No. 2 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 Mukesh Kumar Mahto (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against Modern Vision Ladmark and Infrastructure Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that on the assurance of the opposite party No. 2 the complainant made investment in RLPP/N scheme in which monthly installment of Rs. 4,000/- was to be deposited for 12 months and on maturity the opposite parties will pay Rs. 53,760/- alongwith interest and other benefits accrued on the said amount. The complainant accepted the proposal for betterment of his future and this investment is not a commercial transaction. The opposite party issued policy bearing booking No. MVA/HO/7815 and the date of the commencement is 4.3.2014 and expiry date is 4.3.2015.
3. It is further averred that the complainant regularly deposited all the installments of Rs. 4,000/- with the opposite parties and on the maturity, the complainant deposited all the relevant documents alongwith original policy with the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the cheque of the entire amount will be sent within 15 days but invain. The complainant made repeated requests to pay the said amount of Rs. 53,760/- alongwith interest but opposite parties have kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following directions to the opposite parties.-
1) To pay Rs. 53,760/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. However, the opposite party No. 2 has been duly served but did not appear to defend the case, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte. However, the complainant has withdrawn the complaint against the opposite party No. 1, therefore the name of the opposite party No. 1 was deleted from the array of the opposite parties.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copies of receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13 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. To support his case, the complainant has firstly filed his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated the entire version as mentioned in the complaint. To support further, the complainant has relied upon the policy Ex.C-2 issued by the opposite party No. 1 indicating that the complainant was to invest Rs. 48,000/- at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month and the maturity value is shown as Rs. 53,760/- and expiry date is shown as 4.3.2015. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13 are the receipts showing the deposit of Rs. 48,000/-with the opposite party No. 2. On the other hand there is nothing on record to indicate that the policy as well as the receipts issued by the opposite parties are fake and not genuine.
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 complainant has successfully proved his case, therefore the complaint is accepted and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 53,760/- to the complainant. Since the amount remained with the opposite party, who have earned interest on it, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay interest to the complainant on this maturity amount of Rs. 53,760/- at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 4.3.2015 till realization. The opposite party has caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation. Further, the opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 2,100/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with 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:
23rd Day of October 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
