BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.126 of 2016

Date of Instt. 17.03.2016

Date of Decision :11.04.2017

Raman Sharda s/o Late Sh. S.C. Sharda aged 41 r/o 350, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Jai Prakash Associates Limited, Regd. & Corporate Office Sector-128, Noida (U.P.).

2. M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., Ist Floor, SCO No.37, PUDA Complex, Opp. Suvidha Centre, Jalandhar City. .........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Arvind Sharda, Adv. Counsel for complainant.

Opposite Party No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is a body corporate, who apart from other business activities, is authorized to raise and accept term deposits from general public. The OP No.2 is agent of OP No.1 and is authorized to accept such term deposits from general public in Jalandhar City. The complainant was allured by the advertisement of opposite parties under which they boasted of good reputation and sound financial health of OP No.1. As per the said advertisement, the OP No.1 was accepting term deposits from general public after taking necessary permission/authorization from the competent authority. As per one of the offers of the opposite parties, a 3 year fixed deposit would carry compound interest of 12.50% per annum and the principal amount was to the investor alongwith the accrued interest after 36 months, at the time of maturity. The complainant, after getting impressed upon the said advertisement, agreed to make a deposit with OP No.1. On 02.05.2012, the complainant approached OP No.2 and invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the fixed deposit of OP No.1 having tenure of 36 months. Afterwards the complainant was provided a FDR bearing No.00534561 dated 02.05.2015 under which the maturity amount of Rs.72,610/- was to be paid on 02.05.2015. At the time of issuance of the said FDR, OP No.2 stated that the maturity amount would be paid/released to the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of FDR by it.

2. That in the third week of May 2015, the complainant approached OP No.2 alongwith the original FDR receipt for its encashment. To the astonishment of the complainant, it was told by OP No.2 that the maturity value of the said FDR could not be released due to some financial indiscipline, mismanagement in the affairs of OP No.1. The complainant was advised to wait for some more time and it was also stated by OP No.2 that the future interest on the maturity value would also be paid to the complainant. The OP No.2 further stated that they would themselves contact the complainant for discharging the aforementioned FDR. The original FDR was deposited with OP No.2. Thereafter the complainant did not hear anything from the OPs about discharging of the aforementioned FDR belonging to him. On 07.10.2015, the complainant got issued a legal notice which was served upon OP No.1 for discharging the aforementioned FDR. The OP No.1 replied to the said notice but did not discharge the aforementioned FDR. This act of the OPs of not discharging the aforementioned FDR on the date maturity, amounts to deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties of not discharging the aforementioned FDR on the agreed date has caused mental harassment to the complainant and as such the cause of action accrued to the complainant and present complaint filed with the prayer that the present complaint may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the maturity amount of the FDR Rs.72,610/- along with interest @ 12.50% per annum compounded annually from the date of maturity i.e. 02.05.2015 till its realization and further OP's be directed to pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.11,000/- and similarly also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.11,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties and accordingly both the OPs appeared but OP No.1 proceeded against exparte whereas OP No.2 filed written reply and whereby OP No.2 has admitted that he is acting only as a Form Collection Agent/Processing Agency between the clients and the fixed deposit company M/s Jai Prakash Associates Limited and further alleged that the OP No.2 does not have any right and authority for the payment of maturity amount, it is only the OP No.1 who makes payment of maturity amount to the certificate holders and other allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied but thereafter when the case was fixed for evidence of the OP No.2, he was proceeded against exparte. Further OP No.1 was remained exparte but he sent written reply through post which was received on 29.06.2016 which was placed on the file wherein the OP No.1 also admitted that the complainant has deposited the said amount by way of fixed deposited but the said amount could not be returned in time due to financial problem and further in preliminary objection No.5 he admitted that the OP No.1 will make the repayment of complainant's FDR No.00534561 within the time permitted by National Company Law Tribunal and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove his exparte claim, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA and additional affidavit Ex.CB and some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file very minutely.

6. One thing is admitted even by OP No.1 and OP No.2 in their respective reply that the complainant has deposited a fixed deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Fixed Deposit Scheme of the OP No.1 for a period of 36 months and it was agreed that the said amount will be repaid to the complainant on the date of maturity i.e. 02.05.2015 to the tune of Rs.72,610 but admittedly till date the OP No.1 failed to return the said amount to the complainant. The plea taken by the OP No.1 in its written reply that the OP No.1 will make the repayment of complainant's FDR amount within the time permitted by National Company Law Tribunal i.e. after 31.03.2017 but 31.03.2017 has also expired despite that the OP No.1 failed to make the payment, as per the version of the counsel for the complainant and moreover the complainant is entitled to get the amount i.e. fixed deposited amount on the date of maturity i.e. 02.05.2015, if the OP No.1 failed to make the payment on the maturity date that OP No.1 is liable to pay interest thereon due to deficiency in service. So, with these observations, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to make the payment of maturity amount of FDR Rs.72,610/- with interest @ 9% from the date of maturity i.e. 02.05.2015 till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses Rs.2000/- to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

11.04.2017 Member President