Complainant Amar Singh Bajwa has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay  Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from 18.6.2018 till its realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for harassment, Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in services alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that on 19.3.2012, he invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the opposite parties vide agreement/document No.01-0102F0003423 at Serial No.360102031030900, receipt no.052901 vide plan No.116 for term of agreement 6.3 years through opposite party no.2, who is the Agent/employee of opposite parties. It was told by him that their company is giving higher rate of interest. He has further pleaded that as per the document issued in his favour, the date of acceptance is 19.3.2012 and date of completion is 18.06.2018. As per the said document minimum realizable value at the time of maturity on 18.06.2018 is Rs.1,00,000/-. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties as they have failed to make the payment inspite of the fact that the due date for making the payment has already been passed i.e. 18.06.2018. He has already completed all the formalities and already handed over the original certificates and other documents to the opposite parties. He approached the office of opposite parties no.1 and 2 so many times but of no avail. He is a Senior Citizen having aged about 80 years and suffering from various ailments and he is in dire need of money. A legal notice dated 19.7.2018 was sent to the opposite parties through counsel by registered post on 20.7.2018 but the opposite parties failed to make the payment of maturity amount. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 

3.           Opposite parities  no.1,3 and 4 did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.11.2018.

4.            Upon notice, opposite party no.2  appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that present complaint is not legally maintainable against the opposite party and the complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the opposite party no.2 in the present complaint; the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party; no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the opposite party no.2 and the present complaint has been filed with the sole objective to harass and to defame the opposite party no.2. Actually, the complainant was well known to the opposite party and there was having family terms between both their families, for the last numbers of years. The complainant had gained confidence of the opposite party and his family members. In the last week of July 2017, the complainant approached to the opposite party and requested to financially help him as he had some urgent personal need of money of amounting to Rs.50,000/- due to his domestic problems. The opposite party accepted his request and paid him Rs.50,000/- through NEFT Rs.30,000/- on dated 31.07.2017 from his firm account bearing No.1402201100540 to the account of complainant bearing No.3483000100033900 and the opposite party deposited Rs.20,000/- on 3.08.2017 direct to the account of complainant. At the time of receiving the said amount, the complainant assured to the opposite party that he will return said amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party within the period of one year. The opposite party believed on the complainant, under their past friendly relations. The opposite party after waiting for one year started demanding his hard earned money from the complainant and on the demand of the opposite party, the complainant firstly procrastinated the matter pending with one pretext or the other and at last falsely refused to return the money of the opposite party and falsely involved in the present complaint. Hence, the opposite party no.2 reserve its rights to initiate legal proceedings against the complainant in competent Court of law,  for recovery of his amount and for lowering the repute of the opposite party by levelling false allegations against him in the present complaint.  On merits, the OPs have repeated the same objections/averments etc while denying and rebutting all the other pleadings/allegations made in the body of the complaint and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with heavy costs.

5.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.

6.        On the other hand, alongwith the written reply O.P.No.2 has filed affidavit of Mandeep Singh alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4

7.   We have heard the ld.counsels for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

8.       We have anxiously considered the contention of the complainant in the light of evidence on record and it has transpired that the stand of the complainant is supported from the evidence led by him in the form of affidavit  which is un- exhibited wherein it is asserted that he  invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the opposite parties on 19.3.2012 vide agreement/document No.01-0102F0003423 at Serial No.360102031030900, receipt no.052901 vide plan No.116 for term of agreement 6.3 years through opposite party no.2, who is the Agent/employee of opposite parties  and as per the document issued in his favour the date of acceptance is 19.03.2012 and date of completion is 18.06.2018 and on its maturity they do not give the maturity  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to him. Ex.C-1 fully proved that complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to Kim Infrastructure and Developers Limited.  Complainant has alleged in his complaint that he deposited the amount through OP No.2who is the agent/employee of Ops No.1,3 and 4 but he has not produced on record any document to prove that OP No.2  acted as agent of Ops 1,3 and 4. No agent code is referred in the complaint nor any document proving the same is produced on the file.  On the other hand, OP NO.2 has categorically denied the allegations of complainant rather he has produced Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 to prove that he is running his independent investment services under the name of SMV Investment India Services and he has further produced Ex.OP-1 and OP2 to prove that he lended money to complainant.  On demanding this amount the complainant has filed the present complaint. We also observe that Ex.OP-1 clearly proves that the account of complainant received an amount of Rs.30,000/-  through NEFT on 31.7.2017 by SMV Investment India Services which is the authorised account of Mandip Singh i.e. OP No.2. Ex.OP2 again proves a deposit of Rs.20,000/- in the account of the complainant. This document is also produced by Mandip Singh i.e. OP No.2. We would like to refer one un-exhibited document produced on the file during the pendency of the proceedings and in the interest of justice this document be read by putting mark ‘A’ on it.  Counsel of complainant argued that this document is issued by Mandip Singh OP No.2 as the same is signed by Mandip Singh but counsel for complainant has not referred any agent code of the said Mandip Singh nor he has got verified the signatures of OP No.2 from any competent person.  And in the absence of any cogent proof OP2 cannot be held liable. On the other hand, OP2 has been able to prove his innocence that he has never been agent of Ops no.1,3 and 4 by producing documents OP2 and OP3. As such he is exempted from any liability.

9.      In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present exparte complaint against Ops No.1,3 and 4 and order the Ops to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay the interest @6% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of passing of order till the payment is made to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

10.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:                   (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

July 29, 2019.                           Member                         Presiding Member

 MK