Punjab

StateCommission

A/393/2017

Jyoti Sarup - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Sharma

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

         2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.393 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.05.2017

                                                          Order Reserved on : 31.10.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:    15.11.2017

Jyoti Sarup son of Late Lahori Mal, Resident of House No.414, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar.                                                                                                                                                     Appellant/complainant

Versus

1. M/s Indusind Bank 10-R, Model Town, Mall Road, Jalandhar, through its Principal Officer.

2. Miss Komal Khurana employee of, M/s Indusind Bank 10-R, Model Town, Mall Road, Jalandhar, through its Principal Officer.

    

                                                      Respondents/opposite parties  

First Appeal against order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,   Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

          Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

         Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant          :         Sh.Surinder Sharma, Advocate

          For the respondents    :         Sh.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate

           

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER

ORDER

                    The appellant/complainant (hereinreferred to as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.04.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.394 of 2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jalandhar (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                Complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he was maintaining  saving bank account No.157696546011 and 100004078378 with OP No.1. On 07.05.2015 complainant visited the bank in connection with FDR deposit and met OP No.2 being employee of OP No.1. Op No.2 cancelled previous sweeping FDR account of the complainant and made a new FDR bearing interest of 11.5% per annum as she claimed a scheme in the bank. Op No.2 took signatures on papers related to OP No.1 for FDR of Rs.3,00,000/-. After few days complainant demanded the documents of new FDR from OP No.2. She told that she had parked the funds of the complainant in Reliance Mutal Fund-Tax Saving of Rs.3,00,000/- without the consent and knowledge of the complainant. The Funds are lying locked for three years. OPs had mentioned wrong mobile number, wrong name of nominee, wrong address of the complainant on Reliance Mutal Funds so that the company may not contact with the complainant. On coming to know about malpractices by the OPs, the complainant met the OPs, upon which OP No.2 gave in writing “I will commit you, I will return you within month and full amount credit to your account”. Due to non-compliance of undertaking a notice dated 16.05.2015 was issued through E-mail and the Bank Manager gave assurance that losses will be met. The OPs have played malpractice, committed misdeeds with public for their personal deeds, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. As such the present complaint was filed with the prayer that OPs be directed to return/transfer Rs.3,00,000/- in the saving account of complainant i.e. 157696546011 and 100004078378, alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. on Rs.3,00,000/- from 07.05.2015 till realization in the bank account of the complainant and further OPs may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses with interest 24% per annum till realization.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs because OPs No.1&2 has nothing to do with the present dispute raised by the complainant. The application form duly signed by the complainant was placed on the file, OP No.1 had only acted as intermediate for reference of complainant to Mutal Fund Company. The complainant reiterated that he invested in Mutual Fund of his own will by issuing a satisfaction letter dated 25.05.2015 in favour of the Bank. After the sale of mutual funds entire services pertaining to the said investment are to be provided by the Mutual Fund Company and not by the OPs. So the complaint against the OPs No.1&2 is mis-conceived and not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. On merits, para No.1&2 were admitted as a matter of record whereas remaining allegation of complaint were categorically denied.

4.                Before the District Forum the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.

5.             In support of his allegations, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CA and additional affidavit Ex.CB along with some documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. In rebuttal, the counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 and some documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs No.1&2.

6.               After going through the allegations in the complaint, written versions filed by OPs, evidence and documents brought on record, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed as referred above.

7.               Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.

8.               We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

9.               It was argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant that letter Ex. Op-3 is a forged & fabricated document. It is neither in the handwriting of the complainant nor it was prepared in his presence. The complainant never approved & signed the documents related to applying for mutual fund. Further prayed to allow the appeal & to set aside the order of the District Forum.

10.              Counsel for the opposite parties/ Respondent argued that Op’s has nothing to do with the dispute raised by the complainant. The complainant with free will invested his money in Reliance Mutual Fund-Tax Saving Scheme after going through the application form, offer document which is evident from the application form EX. Op-2 and further reiterated by issuing a satisfactory letter dated 25/05/2015 Ex. OP-3. After sale of mutual funds entire services pertaining to the said investment are to be provided by the mutual fund company 7 not by OPs. As such the appeal be dismissed.

11.              On perusal of the documents Ex OP-3 & Ex. OP-2 which are application form duly filled in by the complainant for applying Reliance Mutual Fund and a satisfactory letter issued by the complainant, bears his signatures. These signatures also are similar with the signatures of the complainant on other documents i.e. power of attorney issued in favour of the counsel Sh. Suriender Sharma and Sh. Rajneesh Dev advocate. The application form signed by the complainant was for Reliance Mutal Fund-Tax Saving Scheme purchase and not for FDR from the Induslnd Bank.

12.              We are of the opinion that on the basis of documents placed on record, it is concluded that the complainant after satisfying himself applied for allotment of Reliance Mutal Fund and signed the required documents. So the version of the complainant that wrongly and illegally his amount was invested in mutal funds is not established here. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.

13.              Sequel to the above the appeal is hereby dismissed and order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the Court cases.

15.              Copy of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. 

 

                                                            (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                          Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

                                                                  

November 15, 2017                      (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

PK/-                                                             Member