Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/721/2015

Kesar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s PACL India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Sharma Adv.

31 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	721/2015
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	31/05/2016

 

                                                

                                                         

Kesar Singh s/o Sh.Hazura Singh, Village Badanpur, District Mohali Guruya Punjab presently r/o H.No.442-B, Maloya Colony, (Near Gurudwara), Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.      M/s PACL India Ltd., (Regd. No.17-011577), Regd. Office at 22^nd, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004.

 

2.      M/s PACL India Ltd., 7^th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

 

3.      M/s PACL India Ltd., SCO No.317, 2^nd Floor, Sector 38-D, UT, Chandigarh-160022.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Chandan Sharma, Advocate for the complainant

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the complainant who is a poor man and earning his income by pulling the richshaw, deposited Rs.440/- per month w.e.f. 04.07.2008 to 04.07.2014 in the scheme/policy floated by the OPs regularly without any default. He was also issued a certificate/policy bearing No.ZNO6A 2592747 dated 04.07.2008 having the date of commencement as 04.07.2008, date of maturity as 04.07.2014  and the reliable estimated amount as Rs.46,200/-.    On its maturity, he requested the OPs to refund the total estimated amount of Rs.46,200/- alongwith interest and even got served a legal notice dated 10.09.2015 upon them but to no effect.  Alleging that non-refund of the deposited amount on its maturity despite service legal notice amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Notices were sent for the service of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 through registered post on 29.12.2015.  However, neither the same were received back served/unserved till date.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that they had been duly served.  None appeared on their behalf on the date fixed, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.02.2016.
3.           OP No.1 did not appear despite publication of the proclamation in the newspaper –Daily Chardhdikala and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 16.05.2016.
4.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           In exparte evidence, the complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit with the supporting documents. In his affidavit, he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Annexure A-1 is copy of the certificate/policy No.2592747 dated 04.07.2008.  As per said certificate/receipt, the complainant was required to deposit Rs.440/- per month from 04.07.2008 to 04.07.2014 and on its maturity, he was to get the estimate reliable amount of Rs.46,200/-. The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit, he deposited the amount of Rs.440/- per month regularly from the year 2008 to 2014 but the OPs have failed to pay the estimated reliable amount of Rs.46,200/- on his repeated visits/requests and even service of the legal notice (Annexure C-2). In our considered view, non-refund of the estimated reliable amount on its maturity itself amounts to deficiency in service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is apt to mention here that the Opposite Parties chose not to appear before this Forum.  Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of the opposite parties, the version of the complainant, supported by his duly sworn affidavit, must prevail.  Failure on the part of the Opposite Parties to honour their commitments, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be allowed. 
6.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund the maturity amount i.e. Rs.46,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity 04.07.2014 till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.7, 000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31/05/2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER