Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/286/2016

Bhupinder kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hind Motors (I) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/286/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	27/04/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	21/03/2017

 

 

 

 

Bhupinder Kaur w/o Sh. Gamdur Singh, resident of H.No.2557, Phase XI, Sector 65, Mohali, SAS Nagar.

….Complainant

VERSUS

 

1.       M/s Hind Motors (I) Limited, 15, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Ashish Mohan Gupta.

 

2.       M/s Hind Motors Limited, 9, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Ashish Mohan Gupta.

 

3.       Hind Motors (Scooter Division), SCO No. 48, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, through its Prop. Sh. Ashish Mohan Gupta.

 

4.       M/s Hind Inns & Hotels Limited, 15, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Ashish Mohan Gupta.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:    SH. S.S. PANESAR           PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. O.P. Dabla, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Ms. Shruti, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Ranjan Lohan, Advocate. (Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte)

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

                   The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- with the Opposite Parties in the shape of two FDRs for a period of two years on 18.06.2011 against rate of interest @ 12.75% p.a. On maturity, the Complainant further got extended the said FDRs, firstly, up to 17.06.2014 against rate of interest @ 11.50% p.a. and thereafter, up to 17.06.2015 against rate of interest @ 11.50% p.a.  However, on maturity, when the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to make the payment of the principle and the interest accrued thereon, the Opposite Parties dilly-dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, with the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.           The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 filed their joint written reply (even though Opposite Party No.3 was already proceeded against ex-parte), inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that on account of suppression of material facts, this complaint deserves to be dismissed. It has been asserted that the transaction in question, was commercial in nature. Amount was deposited by the complainant only to get interest.  Therefore, she is not a consumer. It has further been pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The Complainant also filed replication to the reply filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the reply by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.
5.           Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
7.     After going through the record and arguments advanced by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint deserves to be allowed. There is no substance in the arguments raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complainant had deposited amount with them, only to earn interest and that transaction being commercial, she would not fall within the definition of a consumer. The above arguments has no legs to stand, when we look into the definition of ‘service’ given in Section (2) (1) (o) of the Act, which reads thus:-

“Section  2 (1) (o)   in   the   Consumer  Protection  Act,  1986

(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential  [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction,] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”

       

                   A perusal of afore extracted Sections shows that it is specifically stated that services means service of any description which is made available to a potential user. It is specifically stated that the provision of facilities in connection with banking etc. would fall within the definition of service.

7.           Furthermore, there is no dispute that the complainant, as per scheme floated by the Opposite Parties, invested her hard earned money, in the shape of FDRs, with Opposite Parties. Maturity amount is also not disputed by the Opposite Parties. There is ample evidence on record to show that the amount aforesaid was claimed by the complainant, by making oral as well as written requests to the Opposite Parties.
8.           Further contention of Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complaint filed is barred by limitation also needs rejection. As per evidence on record, initial deposit was made by the Complainant on 18.06.2011, which was to be matured on 17.06.2013 and thereafter, the Complainant got extended the FDRs in question upto 17.06.2015. When the Opposite Parties failed to pay the maturity amount, along with interest at the agreed rate of interest @12.75% p.a., the Complainant wrote letters dated 06.05.2015, followed by reminder dated 03.04.2016, prior to instituting the present Complaint on 27.04.2016 before this Forum. In view of above, the complaint filed by the complainant is perfectly within limitation. Hence there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9.           In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and they are directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.2,41,873/- + Rs.3,22,497/- (Rs.5,64,370/-) to the complainant along with interest @ 11.50% per annum from 17.06.2015, till realization;
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing Opposite Parties shall pay the amount at Sr. No.(ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint, till actual payment, besides complying with the directions at Sr. No.(i) and (iii) above.
11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st March, 2017                                      Sd/-            

S.S. PANESAR]

PRESIDENT

                                                Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

Sd/-                  

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                  

                                                                                MEMBER

 

“Dutt”