Prem Parkash filed a consumer case on 10 Feb 2009 against M/s Kanak Dhara & others in the Kapurthala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/145 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Kapurthala
CC/08/145
Prem Parkash - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s Kanak Dhara & others - Opp.Party(s)
Sh. Mukesh Gupta,Advocate
10 Feb 2009
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/145
1. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had deposited Rs.13,920/- with opposite party No. through respondent No.2 in the month of August, 2007 and started receiving payments according to the terms and conditions as detailed in para No. 2 of the complaint. It is alleged that the payment received upto 15.12.2007 is correct as per the scheme, but the payment received -2- of 15.1.2008 and 15.6.2008 were not correctly paid by the opposite parties and the bonus earned by him as per the payment dated 15.12.2007 could not be reduced as the growth of 63% was to be added in the payment of 15.01.2008 and after addition of 63% growth the correct payout of 15.01.2008 comes to Rs.14,453/- and by adding 20% growth in payment of 15.06.2008, the correct payout comes to Rs.17,344/-. It is alleged that at the time of deposit, the opposite party No. 2 assured him that he will receive the payment as per terms and conditions of respondent no.1, but when he received the wrong payout from the respondent, the complainant approached respondent No. 2 for the redressal of his grievance, but it flatly refused to cooperate with the complainant and refused to make the deficient payment to him as per term and conditions. The complainant also served a legal notice but to no effect, hence it is a deficiency in its service for which it is prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.14,128/- which the opposite parties had paid less, they be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental tension and harassment suffered by him, to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of complaint 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties The opposite party party No. 1 appeared through Shri Nitin Sharma Advocate and case adjourned for filing the written statement. Lateron, neither the opposite party No. 1 appeared in person nor through counsel and also not filed written statement. So the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte. The opposite party No. 2 also failed to appear despite service, so it was also proceeded ex-parte. 3. In the ex-parte evidence led by the complainant, he has -3- tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 4. We have heard argument of complainant and have gone through the file and documents produced on file by the complainant. No worthwhile evidence has been led by the complainant from where we come to the conclusion that the complainant had deposited such and such amount with the opposite party and they as per their terms and conditions paid less amount to the complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In this case, the complainant has placed on file only a pamphlet and that document is not signed by any of the officer of the opposite parties. The perusal of the file also shows that the complainant has not placed on file any law to explain how this pamphlet is legally admissible in evidence. In this the complainant has deposited total Rs.13920/- with the opposite parties in the month of August, 2007 and from 15.9.2007 to 15.6.2008 in less than year, he had received Rs.33596/- from the opposite parties which shows that he had already received Rs.19676/- as interest from the opposite parties and no financial Institution or any bank gives this much interest in less than a year. At the most this was a case of mutual trust with understanding and the request of the complainant is not legally enforcible. The complainant has not mentioned any law under which he is seeking a relief from this Forum. So the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he has already received Rs.19676/- as interest in a span of less than year and as mentioned above, no financial institution gives this much of interest. So finding -4- no merit in the complaint, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the judgment be sent to the parties free of costs through registered post without any delay. File be consigned to the record room. Dated: Gulshan Prashar Shashi Narang Paramjit Singh 10.2.2009 Member Member President
......................Gulshan Prashar ......................Paramjeet singh Rai ......................Smt. Shashi Narang
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.