Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/8

Vishal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Good Capitalz Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

12 May 2016

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       08

Date of Institution :  05.01.2016

Date of Decision :    12.05.2016

Vishal aged about 31 years s/o Raj Kumar, r/o Near Farid Pinting Press / Aggarwal Complex, Near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura,  District Faridkot.                                                                                 

...Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Good Capitalz Pvt Ltd, Circular Road, Near Bus Stand, Faridkot through its Managing Director.

2. Sukhraj Singh, Director, Good Capitals Pvt Ltd. c/o Sukhraj Singh s/o Jugmander Singh r/o Village and Post Office Sukhanwala, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                              ........ OPs

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Atul Gupta, Adv. Ld Counsel for Complainant,

   OPs  Exparte.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest besides Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs15,000/-as litigation expenses.

   2                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 14.11.2013, at the instance of Ops, complainant invested amount of Rs.1,00,000/-with Ops for a period of one year commencing from 14.11.2013 to 14.11.2014 and in turn Ops issued receipt bearing no. 16 dt 14.11.2013 alongwith one deed bearing no.GC1016 dt 14.11.2013 and also agreed to pay Rs1,00,000/- alongwith Rs2000/-as interest per month till maturity, but since the date of taking consideration from complainant, Ops have neither returned Rs.1,00,000/-nor have paid Rs.2000/-of amount of interest per month to complainant.  Despite repeated demands raised by complainant, Ops have not made payment of interest to complainant nor have returned the amount of Rs1,00,000/-deposited by him with them. Complainant has made many requests to Ops to make payment of his entire amount, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice dt 16.12.2015 to complainant requesting them to return his amount of Rs1,00,000/-, which complainant gave to them alongwith interest amount of Rs2000/-per month, but that also bore no fruit. This act of OPs has caused financial loss, great harassment and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/- with interest and has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides Rs 15,000/- as litigation. Hence, the complaint.

   3                     The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.01.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

   4                     Notice was issued to Ops, but they refused to accept the same and despite repeated calls, nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of Ops on the date fixed, therefore, both OP-1 and OP-2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dt 6.05.2016.   

   5                           The complainant tendered in Ex parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-6 and then, closed his evidence.

   6                               In the absence of any rebuttal, Ld Counsel for complainant in his exparte arguments vehementally contended that the OP Company is doing the business of finance. They used to take deposits from public on interest and further lend this money to other people on higher rate of interest. At the instance of Ops, on 14.11.2013, complainant invested his amount of Rs.1,00,000/-with Ops for a period of one year i.e from 14.11.2013 to 14.11.2014 and against the consideration paid by complainant, Ops issued receipt dt 14.11.2013 alongwith one deed dt 14.11.2013 and also agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-                   alongwith Rs2000/-as interest per month till maturity, but since the date of making payment by complainant, Ops neither returned the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-nor paid any interest on Rs.1,00,000/-as agreed by them. It is further contended that complainant made many requests to Ops to make payment of his entire amount, but they did not make any payment. It is submitted by ld counsel for complainant before the Forum that complainant also served legal notice dt 16.12.2015 to complainant, wherein requested Ops to return his amount of Rs1,00,000/-, alongwith interest amount of Rs2000/-per month as agreed between the parties, but to no effect. Ops have caused huge monitory loss to complainant besides causing harassment and mental tension. In order to support his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has relied upon case law 2013(1) Consumer Law Today 575 titled as Anand Prabhakar Vs T.N. Ramachandra Shetty decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it is observed that (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)(o)-Deficiency in service – Complainant had made fixed deposit of rupees one lac @ 18% p. A.with interest – District Forum held, non  refund of the deposit as well as the interest was deficiency of service – Order challenged by OP before State Commission in appeal – Appeal dismissed – Revision filed before NC by opposite party dismissed. (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (d) – Finance company – fixed deposit by complainant – Held by State Commission, Investor consumer and finance company service provider –Findings upheld by NC in revision. Counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses. Complainant has stressed on documents                  Ex C-1 to 6.

   7                                               As there is no rebuttal from Ops side, therefore, we have heard the ex-parte arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file.

   8                                         From the careful examination of document Ex C-5, which is a receipt no. 16 dt 14.11.2013 issued by Ops, it is clear that complainant made payment of Rs1,00,000/-to Ops. On the face of it, this document gives strength to the pleading of complainant that he paid the amount of Rs1,00,000/- to Ops. Ex C-6 is the copy of deed dt 14.11.2013, which specifies that complainant paid the said amount to Ops on 14.11.2013 for one year and amount of Rs2000/-which were to be paid by Ops to complainant on account of interest is also mentioned over it. These two documents are cogent evidence, authenticity of which can not be ignored. Legal notice Ex C-2 further explains the grievance of complainant, which was served by complainant to Ops. All these documents prove that Ops have been deficient in services and they did not come up to fulfil the terms of deed, which is evident from Ex C-6. All this proves that Ops have caused great harassment to complainant by retaining his large amount of Rs1,00,000/-depriving him of the interest, which was to be accrued on it. All this caused harassment and mental tension to complainant, which entitles him for compensation and litigation expenses.

   9                                             From the careful perusal of the record and in view of documents placed on file, this Forum is fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that OPs have been deficient in services and there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in not making payment of interest as agreed between the parties and also failed to return the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- received from complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to pay Rs 1,00,000/-to complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per anum from the date of payment by complainant alongwith Rs5,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs 3000/-as litigation expenses. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

   Announced in Open Forum

   Dated : 12.05.2016

                                            Member            Member                  President

             (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (Ajit Aggarwal)