BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

                                                                                                                                                                  C.C. No. 76 of 2016

                                                                                                                                                      Instituted on: 03.03.2016

                                                                  Decided on: 14.06.2016

Sukhwinder Kaur aged about 43 years w/o Balwinder Singh r/o H.No. 125, Ward No.1, Gali no.1, Bedi Nagar, Moga Tehsil and District Moga.

                                                                             ……….   Complainant 

Versus

1.       M/s Nau Nidh Finance Co, through its Managing Director/Partner, Taptej

Singh Market, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.

2.       Gurmeet Singh son of Banta Singh r/o Charik Road, Back Side Maharaja

Palace, 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 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

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

                   Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate Cl. for the 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 another (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to release the amount of Rs. 7,48,000/- i.e.  Rs.5,75,500/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,72,500/- as interest alongwith future interest till its realization to the complainant. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment, legal expenses etc. to the complainant.

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 deposited Rs.3,31,500/- on dated 7.10.2013 in the firm M/s Nau Nidh Finance Company, Taptej Singh Market, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga and Gurmeet Singh, Managing Director/Partner/officer of Nau Nidh Finance Company issued pass book bearing account no.1020/A to the complainant in the name of complainant   and made the entry of this amount in the pass book. After that complainant deposited Rs.2,94,000/- on dated 1.5.2014 with opposite party and this entry was also made in the pass book by opposite party. The complainant withdrew Rs.50,000/- on dated 7.6.2014 from the abovesaid account and this entry was also made in the pass book by the opposite party and till 7.6.2014 Rs.5,75,500/- is the total outstanding with the opposite party. At the time of depositing the above mentioned amount by the complainant, Gurmeet Singh, Managing Director/Partner, Nau Nidh Finance Co. was present there and he assured the complainant to return back the payment alongwith interest of 18% per annum as and when demanded by the complainant. After that in the month of October, 2015, when the complainant demanded her amount alongwith interest from the said Gurmeet Singh, he ensured the complainant that he will make the total payment of the complainant alongwith interest after one/two months, but he never return any amount to the complainant and now Rs. 7,48,000/- i.e. Rs. 5,75,500/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,72,500/- as interest @ 18% p.a. is recoverable amount from the opposite parties. Inspite of repeated requests, demands and representations, the opposite party did not return the amount out of 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 complainant has 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 against the opposite parties is not maintainable and complainant has no right to claim alleged amount etc. from the opposite parties, as opposite parties has no concern of any kind whatsoever with the documents i.e. pass book etc. filed by the complaint alongwith the complaint. The alleged pass books are forged and fabricated document, which have been prepared by the complainant on his own and it is submitted that the said documents does not bear signatures of the opposite parties or any of its officials. Further submitted that the complainant and her relative has some dispute with one shop-keeper in the vicinity of the office of the opposite parties a couple of months ago and at the time opposite parties has accompanied the said shop-keeper for initiating legal action against the complainant and her relative and it is on account of that grudge that complainant with the malafide intention to grab huge amount from opposite parties prepared the false documents and filed the present complaint on the basis of those false documents just to harass the opposite parties. The complainant has got printed on his own the alleged pass books and by incorporating factitious and false entries in the pass book filed the present complaint without any legal right and without any sort of liability on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. As already stated the said pass book has never been signed and filled by the opposite parties or any of its employees or representatives; that the complainant has no locus standi to filed the present complaint; that there is no relationship of the complainant as consumer of the opposite parties. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                In order to prove her case, complainant Sukhwinder Kaur has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copy of document/pass book Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.

5.                In rebuttal, opposite party tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Gurmeet Singh s/o Banta Singh r/o Charik Road, Moga, District Moga Ex.OPs-1 and closed the evidence.

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

7.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs. 3,31,500/- on dated 7.10.2013, Rs. 2,94,000/- on dated 1.5.2014 with the opposite parties on interest basis and the entries were also made in the Pass Book bearing account no. 1020/A issued to the complainant by the opposite parties, copy of which is Ex. C-2. Thereafter, complainant withdrew Rs. 50,000/- on dated 7.6.2014 from the abovesaid account and opposite party endorsed the entry in the pass book with regard to remaining amount of Rs. 5,75,500/-.  Further argued that at the time of depositing the amount by the complainant, opposite parties assured the complainant to return back the payment alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as and when demanded by the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant has made so many requests to opposite parties to return the amount alongwith interest, but to no effect. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

8.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, learned counsel for opposite parties argued that complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no right to claim the alleged amount from the opposite parties as opposite parties has no concern of any kind whatsoever with the documents filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint. The complainant with malafide intention to grab huge amount from opposite parties prepared the false documents. It has been further argued that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant is not the 'Consumer' of opposite parties. It is denied that opposite parties ever got any deposit from the complainant and that there is no indefinite service on the part of opposite parties.

9.                The evidence produced by the complainant in the form of his affidavit Ex. C-1. The complainant has deposited Rs. 3,31,500/- on 7.10.2013 and Rs. 2,94,000/- on 01.05.2014 and the entries to this respect also made in the pass book Ex. C-2. Thereafter, as per the record of pass book, the complainant withdrew Rs. 50,000/- on dated 7.6.2014 and remaining amount of Rs. 5,75,500/- was still outstanding against the opposite parties. This fact has nowhere rebutted by the opposite parties in their written reply as well as in their duly sworn affidavit Ex. OPs-1. So, being the finance company, the opposite party no.1 is bound to pay the amount alongwith interest, but they have failed to pay the same. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

10.              The main objection of opposite parties is that the complainant and her relative has some dispute with one shop-keeper in the vicinity of the office of the opposite parties and at that time opposite parties has accompanied the said shop-keeper to initiate legal action against the complainant and her relative and it is on account of that grudge that complainant with the malafide intention to grab huge amount from opposite parties prepared the false documents and filed the present complaint on the basis of those false documents just to harass the opposite parties. But in his written reply and his affidavit even though at the time of arguments, the opposite parties or their counsel failed to produce any evidence regarding their allegations, even they failed to disclose the name of said shop-keeper with whom they allege the dispute of complainant and her relative and in whom support opposite parties accompanied to take action against the complainant, even they failed to disclose the date or month of that dispute. So, this story of the opposite parties is only a concoctions one and is not sustainable.

11.              It is generally seen that the private finance companies get deposits from illiterate and helpless persons who used to deposit in greed of higher rate of interest, but they refuse to return the same on maturity/demand.

12.              With regard to the plea of the jurisdiction of this District Forum to entertain such complaints, we have noted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties. In section 2.19-11 under the head "Financial Service" of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986', it has been held to the following effect:-

                   State Financial Corporations have been constituted as body corporate under the Financial Corporation Act with the object of rendering financial assistance to deserving applicants for establishment of industries. Financial assistance rendered by the Financial Corporation is a service for which the borrower pays interest. Thus, within the broad meaning of consumer and service, such service is for hire. Any deficiency in service comes within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. A failure to refund the amount deposited with any financial institution on maturity amounts to deficiency in service.

                   The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of Smt. Kalawanti & Ors. Vs. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.- I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC) while discussing the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 in a consumer case of deposits from the public has held that "where a Company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a 'consumer' under CPA. Moreover in Consumer Forums, the justice can be delivered without any procedural wrangles and hyper technicalities".

13.              In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint in hand stands allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,75,500/- as per the entry reflected in the pass book Ex. C-2 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 7.6.2014 (when the last balance was carried over in the pass book Ex. C-2) till its payment to the complainant. Opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 5000/-(five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be given to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.06.2016

                               (Bupinder Kaur)           (Vinod Bala)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                     Member                     Member                             President