BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 259 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution: 27.12.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision: 24.05.2019.

Mrs. Sangita Bansal wife of Shri Vijay Bansal, resident of House No. 23, old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani at present resident at near Gomati Mandir, old Anaj Mandi Road, Billu Badshah Mandir, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Mount Soft (Mutual Benefit India Nidhi Ltd) Reg. Office: 5, Mohan Bhag Opposite Dwarikapuri, Bhuteshwar Road, Mathura-281001 (UP) through its authorized signatory/regional Director.
2. Mount Soft (Mutual Benefit India Nidhi Ltd), Haluwasia Moll, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

…...Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri Sanjiv Changia, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri I. S. Parmar, Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant in brief, is that her husband was earlier employee under the OPs and now he has left the job w.e.f. September, 2016.  It is alleged that the complainant has purchased a membership No. M01700024 under Plan No./term FD34/12month for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 11.6.2016 for a period of one year from OP No. 2 and as such policy was issued by the OPs against account No.C01700031.  It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant is no more in job and as such she and his family members are facing financial hardship as husband of the complainant is required to pay a huge amount to one Dhanpat Singh of village Devsar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani against some cheque as due to non availability of fund in the account of the husband of the complainant, the cheque have been bounced and above named Dhanpat Singh has filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act and the same is pending for adjudication.  It is further alleged that keeping in view legal necessity, the complainant approached the OPs and produce the said Fixed deposit/policy to premature the said amount, but the OP No. 2 flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant stating that there is no provision of prematurity of any policy in the company and two days back the OP No. 2 refused to settle any claim against the said fixed deposit/policy.  It is further alleged that the complainant is need of money for the said legal necessity and as such the version of the OPs is not binding upon the right of the complainant and she is entitled to get refund the amount of said policy/F.D. alongwith upto date interest from the day of deposit till its realization.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus the present complaint. 

2.               On notice, OPs appeared and filed contested written statement alleging therein that the husband of the complainant namely Vijay Bansal was serving in the company of the OPs as Haryana Head and during his service period, he has taken bond bearing No.12031 of Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the complainant and in lieu of said bond he has deposited two cheque i.e. cheque No.001206 of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 18.6.2016 and cheque No.000005 of Rs.50,000/- dated 7.6.2016, but both cheque were dishonored.  It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant has mislead the OP company and thus he has committed fraud with the company and when this fact came into the knowledge of the OPs his services have been terminated.  It is further alleged that the OPs have asked to return the aforesaid bond, but he delaying the matter and lastly he refused to return the same.  It is further alleged that due to fraud done by the husband of the complainant, the OPs have moved an application before SHO Civil Line, Bhiwani on 16.1.2016.  It is further alleged that the cheque deposited by the husband of the complainant in lieu of bond in question were bounced, hence, the bond is not executable, as no such amount has been received by the OPs.  It is further alleged that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount of aforesaid bond, as the same is not executable, because the husband of the complainant has procured the aforesaid bond by way of fraud without depositing the amount.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C11 in evidence and closed the evidence. 

4.                Ld. counsel for the OPs has placed on record documents as Annexure R1 to R7 and closed the evidence and ld. counsel for the OPs has further placed on record documents Annexure R8 to R17.

5.                We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs have failed in releasing the amount of FD to the complainant, thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for allowing the complaint with costs.

7.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of the written statement.  He argued that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount of bond, as the same is not executable, because the husband of the complainant has procured the aforesaid bond by way of fraud without depositing the amount.  He further contended that the cheques given by the complainant for the issuance of bond, were bounced and due to this reason her bond has been cancelled.  He further contended that the complainant has placed on record a copy of bond and from the perusal of the same, it is clear that the number in the bottom of the bond has been changed as 12031 instead of 12030 by making over writing.  He further contended that at the time of issuance of bond of Rs.5000/- & above, the OPs use to paste a revenue stamp on the same, but there is no revenue stamp on the bond placed on record by the complainant.  He further contended that while printing the bond, the same number is also printed in the bottom of bond, as printed on the top of the bond, whereas there is different number on the bottom of the bond of the complainant.  He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.

                   After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves dismissal, because there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant claimed that bond No.12031 was issued in her favour and placed the copy of the bond No.12031 as Annexure C1.  But from the perusal of bond No. 12031 Annexure C1, it transpires that in the bottom left side of bond, No.12030 is made No.12031 by making digit zero as one by overwriting on the same with pen and the complainant has nowhere explained in his pleadings about the overwriting made on the bond.  The plea taken by the OPs that while printing the bond, the same number is also printed in the bottom of bond, as printed on the top of bond is tenable, because from the perusal of the bond placed on the file by complainant clearly shows that at the time of printing the bond, bond number was 12030, which was lateron altered by the complainant as 12031 by overwriting by pen. This fact itself creates doubt in the claim of the complainant.  On the other hand, the OPs have placed on record copies of other bonds as Annexure R8 to R11, issued to other people to show that there is no cutting/overwriting on the bonds issued by OPs.  Moreover, it is admitted fact by both the parties that the husband of the complainant was employee of the OPs at the time of issuance of bond in question.  The OPs have taken the plea that they issued blank bonds to the Bhiwani office.  The OPs have also placed on record the copies of details of bond issued to the Bhiwani Branch as Annexure R16 and R17 in support of their plea.  As per OPs the husband of the complainant being head of branch office at Bhiwani has got print out on blank bond lying with him, whereas the bond of the complainant was cancelled by the OPs, as the cheques issued by the complainant were bounced due to “Insufficient fund” and OPs have also placed on record copies of Cheques as Annexure R5 & R6.  From the perusal of cheques Annexure R5 and R6, it is clear that cheques were issued in favour of OPs by the complainant.  The OPs have also placed on record copy of cheque returning memo as Annexure R4, which shows that the cheque issued by the complainant in favour of the OPs was bounced due to “Insufficient fund”.  On the other hand, complainant has failed to produce some cogent and convincing evidence to rebut the stand taken by the OPs regarding cheque returning memo and Cheques issued by complainant in favour of OPs.  The OPs have also placed on record agreement status report as Annexure R12, which shows that bond No.12030 was issued in favour of complainant.  The OPs have also placed on record copy of bond No.12030 as Annexure R13, which clearly shows that the bond has already been cancelled by the OPs.  The OPs have placed on record detail of mode of payment by complainant at the time of issuance of bond as Annexure R14, which clearly shows that the mode of payment by complainant was cheque.  Moreover, from the perusal of bond Annexure C1, it is clear that there is no revenue stamp pasted on it, whereas as per OPs they use to paste revenue stamp on the bond of Rs.5000/- & above.  So, from the documents placed on record by the OPs, it is clearly established on record that the bond of the complainant was cancelled by the OPs due to non-payment, as cheque issued by the complainant remained unpaid due to “Insufficient funds”.  In this way, the complainant herself failed to establish on record by some cogent evidence that she was consumer of the OPs as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.                Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order to cost.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 24.05.2019.                 

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.