Punjab

Moga

CC/17/16

Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Nau Nidh Finance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jagdish Bawa

17 May 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                      CC No. 16 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 02.02.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 17.05.2017

 

1.       Mohinder Singh s/o Jeet Singh r/o Village Lamme, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

2.       Harpreet Singh son of Mohinder Singh s/o Jeet Singh r/o Village Lamme, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

3.       Nasib Kaur (deceased) wife of Mohinder Singh, through her legal heirs;

          i)       Mohinder Singh (husband)

ii)      Manpreet Kaur (daughter) of Nasib Kaur and wife of Daljinder Singh r/o Santokh Nagar, near Tahli Sahib Gurudwara, Raikot, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.

iii)     Balvinder Kaur Plaha w/o Jagjit Singh Plaha and d/o Nasib Kaur (deceased) and Mohinder Singh r/o VPO Bassian, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, Punjab presently residing at 6838-142A, Street, Surrey, BC. V3W0P3, Canada through her power of attorney Sh. Mohinder Singh s/o Jeet Singh r/o VPO Lamma, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

iv)     Pardeep Singh Saimbhi son of Nasib Kaur (deceased) and Mohinder Singh r/o VPO Lamma, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab India presently residing at 7515 Wiltshire Drive, Surrey, V3S 2 Y6, Canada, through his power of attorney Sh. Mohinder Singh s/o Jeet Singh r/o VPO Lamma, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

v)      Harpreet Singh (son) of Nasib Kaur and Mohinder Singh r/o Village Lamme, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

                                                                           ……… Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Nau Nidh Finance Co. through its Managing Director/Partner, Taptej Singh Market, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.

 

2.       Ramandeep Singh @ Raju s/o Master Hardial Singh r/o Green Field Colony, Ward no.27, Moga, District Moga, Managing Director/Partner of firm M/s Nau Nidh Finance Co., Taptej Singh Market, Moga Tehsil and District Moga. 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Jagdish Bawa, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties. 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against M/s Nau Nidh Finance Co. through its Managing Director/Partner, Taptej Singh Market, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to release the amount of Rs.6,10,000/- (i.e. Rs.3,30,000/- as principal amount and Rs.2,80,000/- as interest) @ 12 % p.a. till today alongwith future interest till its realization. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment or any other relief which this Forum deem fit and proper be also granted.

 2.               Briefly stated the facts of the case are that opposite party no.1 is a finance company and doing the business of finance and also deposited the money from the persons on interest basis and opposite party no.2 is Director/Partner of Nau Nidh Finance Co. Taptej Singh Market, Moga. The complainant Mohinder Singh deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on dated 29.9.2005 in the firm M/s Nau Nidh Finance Company, Taptej Singh Market, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga and Managing Director/Partner/officer of Nau Nidh Finance Company issued pass book bearing account no.2031 to the complainant Mohinder Singh in his name. The complainant Mohinder Singh also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on dated 12.12.2005 with the Firm and Managing Director/Partner/Official of Nau Nidh Finance Co. issued pass book bearing a/c no.2151 to complainant Mohinder Singh in his name and made the entry of the amount in the pass book. After that complainants deposited Rs.50,000/- on dated 05.10.2006 in account no.2031 with opposite party and this entry was also made in the pass book. The complainant Mohinder Singh also used to withdraw amount and interest on various dates from the abvoesaid two accounts and entries in this regard were also made in the pass book by opposite party. The last entry of passbook of account no.2031 is for Rs.30,000/- dated 02.08.2010 and in the passbook of account no.2151 for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 22.12.2009.

          Harpreet Singh, complainant no.2 deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on dated 29.09.2005 in abovesaid firm and opposite party no.2 issued passbook bearing a/c 2032 to complainant Harpreet Singh on the name of complainant and made entry of this amount in the pass book and after that on various dates complainant Harpreet Singh used to withdraw the amount of interest from the said account and entry of withdrawal was also made by the opposite parties in the passbook. Last entry of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 22.12.2009 was also made by opposite parties. Similarly, Nasib Kaur complainant no.3 (since deceased)  w/o Mohinder Singh also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on dated 29.09.2005 with the firm and Manaing Director of the firm issued passbook bearing a/c no.2033 to Nasib Kaur and made entry of amount in the passbook. After that on various dates said Nasib Kaur withdraw the amount of interest from the abovesaid account  and entry of withdrawal was also made by opposite parties in the passbook of Nasib Kaur. Last entry of Rs.1,00,00/- dated 22.12.2009 was also made by opposite parties in the passbook. After the death of said Nasib Kaur in the month of November, 2013, complainant no.3 (i) to 3(v) were the legal heirs of Nasib Kaur. At the time of depositing the abvoementioned amount by the complainants, Managing Director/Partner, Nau Nidh Finance Co. was present there and he assured the complainants to return back the payment alongwith interest of 12% per annum as and when demanded by the complainants. After that in the month of April, 2015, when the complainants demanded their amount alongwith interest from the said Ramandeep Singh @ Raju Managing Director of the Firm, he ensured the complainants that he will make the total payment of the complainants alongwith interest after one/two months, but he never return any amount to the complainants and now Rs. 6,10,000/- i.e. Rs.3,30,000/- as principal amount and Rs.2,80,000- as interest @ 12 % p.a. is the total recoverable from the opposite parties.

                   Inspite of repeated requests, demands and representations, the opposite parties did not return the principal amount or interest thereon so far to the complainant. The opposite party firm is a finance company and registered as per rules and regulations of Company Act and complainant is the consumer of the opposite party firm. Due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party firm, the complainants have suffered mental harassment and economic loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections inter alia that complaint is not maintainable as it has not been filed in accordance with statutory provisions and dead person namely Nasib Kaur has been impleaded party in the complaint. It is submitted that no proof regarding factum that complainant no.3 (i) to 3 (v) are legal heirs of Nasib Kaur has been filed alongwith complaint. Whereas it was mandatory for alleged legal representatives to obtain succession certificate from civil court before claiming any amount (if due) on behalf of stated Nasib Kaur; that the complainants are not entitled to be paid the alleged amount as entire amount transaction has been fully settled between the parties and it is submitted that complainants have concealed the factum of receipt of payment of Rs.4.20 lacs made by opposite parties on 12.08.2016 and said entire payment has been duly acknowledged to have been received by complainant Mohinder Singh vide payment voucher dated 12.08.2016 of said payment which has been duly signed by him. It is further submitted that complainant Mohinder Singh has not brought passbooks of complainants alongwith him while payment refereed above was made and as such necessary entries of said amount could not be reflected in pass books and now taking undue advantage of incomplete entries in the said passbook, the complainant has filed the present complaint to extort huge amount without any liability on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties have been maintaining regular computerized accounts and the entries of amount referred above have been duly incorporated therein. After receipt of amount detailed above, the complainant have been mentioned on overleaf of voucher dated 12.08.2016 that he has received payment without passbook etc. Mohinder Singh complainant has been dealing on behalf of Harpreet Singh and Nasib Kaur regarding transactions and representing himself to be duly appointed by them and it is on account of said fact that settlement was made with him and he agreed on behalf of other complainants to receive total amount of Rs.4 ½  lacs in satisfaction of claim of all complainant out of which 4.20 lac was received by him as detailed above and balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was committed to be paid to him as and when he will return the pass books etc. to opposite party, but complainant failed to return passbook and now filed the complaint without any legal ground. Rs.1.40 lacs each was committed and settled to be paid to the complainants by the opposite parties and entries to that effect has been duly made in the account record of opposite parties and Rs.30,000/- was agreed to be paid as and when passbooks were to be returned to opposite parties and in this way total amount of Rs.4.20 lacs in cash was paid to complainant Mohinder Singh who represented other complainants also and executed voucher to that effect as stated above. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on file.

5.                Now, the case fixed for evidence of complainant, at this stage, the complainant has filed an application for directing the opposite parties to produce the original voucher dated 12.08.2016 of Rs.4,20,000/- and voucher dated 2.8.2010 of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant submitted that in the voucher dated 12.8.2016 there are alteration in date and amount and with naked eye it is clear that opposite party has made alteration in date from 2 to 12 and year from 2010 to 2016 and there is alteration in amount Rs.20,000/- to 4,20,000/-. The complainant Mohinder Singh received Rs.20,000/- from the opposite parties on dated 2.8.2010 and he signed on the voucher, but opposite parties fraudulently made alteration in the said voucher and in this way opposite parties have committed the offence of forgery and opposite parties may kindly be directed to produce the original voucher dated 2.8.2010 and dated 12.08.2016. The opposite parties filed reply to this application submitting that no voucher of Rs.20,000/- dated 2.8.10 was ever executed by the complainant as after making payment of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant by the opposite party, the necessary entry of Rs.20,000/- was duly made in the pass book of the complainant and as such there was no need for execution of voucher of Rs.20,000/- dated 2.8.2010. The complainant executed voucher of Rs.4,20,000/- as he has not brought his pass book alongwith him due to which the entry of said payment of Rs.4,20,000/- dated 12.08.2016 could not be made in the pass book. There is no alteration of any kind as alleged has been made in the voucher of Rs.4,20,000/- dated 12.08.2016 and they are ready to produce the said original voucher of Rs.4,20,000/- dated 12.08.2016 as and when directed by the Forum. On merits submitted that the complainant has issued one voucher only duly signed by him regarding receipt of payment of Rs.4,20,000/- from the opposite party and no alteration as alleged has been done in the said voucher stated above. The opposite party is in possession of one voucher of Rs.4,20,000/- only and he is ready to produce the same in the Forum.

6.                Ld. counsel for complainant further submitted that opposite parties produced voucher and statements of accounts alongwith written reply. The entries of alleged statements of accounts does not tally with the entry of passbooks, which was issued by opposite parties to complainant and these entries made in the passbooks by opposite parties themselves. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite parties submitted that they produced the correct statement of account alongwith their written reply.  

7.                We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments led by learned counsel for both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he deposited amount with opposite parties, which they never paid back to him and he filed this suit against them for directing them to return this amount. On the other hand, opposite parties alleged that the accounts are settled by the complainant with opposite parties and the complainant received the amount of Rs.4,20,000/- in cash from the opposite parties and has executed payment voucher dated 12.08.2016 to this effect in their favour. Whereas, the complainant denied that they ever settled the account with opposite parties and executed any voucher for Rs.4,20,000/- on 12.08.2016 in their favour. Now, for the just decision of this case, first of all the genuineness of alleged voucher and statements of accounts are to be decided and there are rival contentions of the parties regarding the execution of alleged documents. In these circumstances, where there are rival contentions of both the parties, now for deciding this case required voluminous evidence and expert opinion and also evidence of alleged witnesses and their cross-examinations required to decide the genuineness of alleged documents. Whereas, the procedure before this Forum is of summary in nature and the evidence of expert and cross-examination of alleged witnesses cannot be made in this Forum. Our Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed in the citation 2014(1)CLT, paged 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade (P) Ltd. Vs UCO Bank, whereas, our Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13-Summary Procedure. Complicated question. Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case. It would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents. The evidence of Experts and Record have to be looked into. These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court. The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess.

8.                From the above discussion and in light of the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we are of the view that there is intricate and complicated questions of law is involved in the present case and it is difficult to decide the present case only on documentary evidence and there is expert evidence is required for which this Forum has no jurisdiction. So, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and we hereby dispose of the present complaint with direction to complainants to seek redressal of their grievance from civil court or any other appropriate Forum and in that case the time spent in contesting the present complaint before this Forum shall be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 17.05.2017.

 

 

                                                  (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                     Member                                      President