DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 08/2017
Date of Institution : 27.01.2017
Date of Decision : 07.09.2017
Budh Ram s/o Sadhu Ram resident of Khudi Road, Near Chowdhari Di Atta Chakki, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Future Choice, Anaj Mandi Barnala c/o M/s Crown Credit Ltd., Near Gaushalla Mandi, Anaj Mandi, Barnala through its Manager/ Managing Director.
2. Lalit Khurana s/o Amar Nath resident of Shakti Nagar, Gali No. 1, Bajakhana Road, Barnala c/o Lalit Medicos, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 exparte.
Sh. MS Sekhon counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Budh Ram has filed the present complaint against M/s Future Choice, Anaj Mandi, Barnala opposite party No. 1 and Lalit Khurana, Bajakhana Road, Barnala opposite party No. 2 under the Consumer Protection Act (in short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present case are that the opposite party No. 2 approached the complainant alongwith Mr. Deepak Bhalla and stated that he is the Manager of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 is engaged in the business of finance and also accepts deposit from the public and pays a huge interest on the deposits and he asked the complainant to deposit his money with opposite party No. 1 for handsome returns i.e. 4% per month. It was further assured that his money will be fully safe with the company and also assured that opposite party No. 2 was fully liable for the sum deposited alongwith interest.
3. It is alleged by the complainant that trusting the words of opposite party No. 2 the complainant gave Rs. 15,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,06,050/- through cheque from his account to the opposite party and the opposite party issued two receipts dated 6.7.2014 comprising units 2100 and 300 with a maturity of two years. It is further submitted that after two years the complainant approached the opposite party for the purpose of getting the maturity amount. However, the opposite party avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other for about one month and on 9.8.2016 the opposite party asked the complainant to deposit original receipts/certificates with the opposite parties and told that the complainant will get his maturity amount up to 31.10.2016 and the opposite party No. 2 gave an affidavit for the same. After that the complainant approached the opposite party on 31.10.2016 to get his maturity amount i.e Rs. 1,92,000/- approximately but the opposite party refused to pay the maturity amount. After that the complainant also approached the police authorities but police did nothing, thus it is submitted that it is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 1,92,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 4% per month from the date of maturity i.e. 16.7.2016 till realization.
2) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3) To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
4) Any other relief which this Forum deems proper.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 initially appeared through his counsel and later on he was proceeded exparte and has not filed the written version.
5. The opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed a written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no locus standi and cause of action, bad for non joinder of necessary parties, complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the answering opposite party has no relation with the complainant or opposite party No. 1 or Mr. Deepak Bhalla. It is also denied that the answering opposite party alongwith Mr. Deepak Bhalla approached the complainant and also denied that the answering opposite party asked the complainant to deposit his money with the opposite party No. 1 for handsome returns i.e. 4% per month. They further denied that money of the complainant will be fully safe. It is further submitted that the complainant might have dealt with opposite party No. 1 directly. As per receipt dated 6.7.2014 the money of the complainant if at all is with opposite party No. 1 and answering opposite party has nothing to do with it. The opposite party No. 2 also denied of giving any affidavit to the complainant that he would make the payment up to 31.10.2016. In fact the complainant has moved an application before the police and the signatures of the answering opposite party were obtained under police pressure. The contents of the affidavit were not read over and explained. As per alleged affidavit the answering opposite party is the purchaser of the units of complainant and does not establish the relation of consumer and service provider rather answering opposite party is consumer of the complainant. It is further submitted that Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the pleadings of the complainant and complaint is liable to be relegated to the Civil Court. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account Ex.C-4, copy of affidavit of Lalit Khurana Ex.C-5, copy of application to SSP (D) Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Lalit Khurana Ex.OP-2/1 and evidence of opposite party No. 2 was closed by order of this Forum.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
10. Firstly it is to be determined whether the complainant has paid the amount in question to the opposite parties. To support his case the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has stated that the opposite party No. 1 M/s Future Choice, Barnala is engaged in the business of finance and also accepts deposits from the public and pays a huge interest on the deposits and trusting the words of the opposite party No. 2 he gave Rs. 15,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,06,050/- through cheque from his account to the opposite party and opposite party issued two receipts dated 6.7.2014 comprising Units 2100 and 300 with the maturity of two years. The complainant further stated that after two years the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the maturity amount but the opposite party avoided the complainant and failed to pay the maturity amount. Apart from his affidavit the complainant has placed on record receipt Ex.C-2 in his favour dated 6.7.2014 showing the investment in Units 2100 Plan, Fixed Period Two years. Ex.C-3 is another Investment Plan of 300 Units dated 6.7.2014 which is also for two years. Ex.C-4 is the statement of account showing the payment of Rs. 15,000/- on 1.7.2014 and cheque of Rs. 1,06,050/- on 9.7.2014 totaling Rs. 1,21,050/-. Ex.C-6 is letter written to the SPD, Police District Barnala by the complainant stating therein that he invested the said amount with the company Future Choice and the maturity date is 16.7.2016. The complainant Budh Ram further mentioned in the application that the said amount has not been given back and therefore, action be taken against the opposite party. On the basis of the said evidence it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties are liable to pay the maturity amount alongwith interest and compensation.
11. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record his affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 wherein he has stated that he never approached the complainant and represented himself to be the Manager of the opposite party No. 1 namely Future Choice. He further stated that the complainant might have dealt with opposite party No. 1 directly and he further stated that he has not given any affidavit to the complainant to make the payment.
12. 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.
13. The above mentioned authority is fully applicable to the present facts of the case. Moreover, no contrary Citation has been produced by the opposite parties before this Forum.
14. In view of the Citation as referred to above and the copies of receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 which shows that the investment was made with the Future Choice opposite party No. 1, so it is held that it is opposite party No. 1 who has received the said investment and it is the opposite party No. 1 who is liable to return the said amount. Therefore, we accept the present complaint against the opposite party No. 1. Hence opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,21,050/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,100/- 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. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
7th Day of September 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
