DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

Complaint No.420 of 2018 Date of Instt.08.10.2018 Date of Decision: 28.09.2021

Suman Lata wife of Amrik Singh R/o VPO Ariyawal, District Kapurthala.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sharma Randev Financiers (Regd) through its Chairman

Gulzar Singh, Managing Directors Subash Sharma.

Ramesh Sharma and Manvinder Singh Pawar (Director)

2. M/s Sharma Group of Finance Company through its Directors:-

1. Sandeep Sharma

2. Reshma Harbaksh Singh

3. Manvinder Singh Pawar

4. Nirwail Singh Rana

5. Janak Sharma wife of Subash Sharma

6. Menu Sharma wife of Ramesh Sharma

7. Pardeep Sharma

Hereinafter called Directors of M/s Sharma Randev Financiers (Regd).Canal Bridge, Near DAV Colleg, GT Road, Jalandhar.

..…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Sh. Bachan Lal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 (Join Proceedings.)

Order

Kuljit Singh(President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments thatcomplainant deposited/invested her hard earned money as trust with the OP-1 under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, who is working as custodian, trusty of the above mentioned registered Company/Firm, Reserve Bank of India, is appointed by Government of India to keep a vigilant, check on the investments of public at large such as the OP-1, with directions RBI to audit the account of company yearly basis, to have the data of the immovable/movable assets apart from the cash deposited by company in bank as reflected in the day book/cash book/ledgers and thereafter to obtain the balance sheet of company and retained the same with their office as per norms of Government of India. From time to time the complainant have not only invested her money in the shape of FDRs but from time to time she also got the said FDRs renewed from the complainant. OP-1 with its directors have received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 01.09.2010 from her and issued a receipt No.1284 with a promise to pay 15% interest and said FDR is going to be matured on 01.09.2015 but the payment of matured FDRs have not been made to complainant. OP-1 alongwith its directors have received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.08.20211 from the complainant and issued a receipt No.FD No.1327 with promise to pay 15% interest and said FDR is going to be matured on 01.08.2016. Another amount of Rs.31,000/- received by Ops on 01.08.2011 as per receipt No.1328 and going to matured on 01.08.2016. An amount of Rs.6,31,000/- deposited with OP-1 from 01.09.2010 to 01.08.2011 with promise of 15% interest from date of investment till maturity. Complainant had requested the OPs for payment of maturity amount but OPs have not do the same. Complainant also moved complaint with the Police Authorities but his grievances not resolved yet. Earlier, complaint was dismissed on 07.08.2018 due to non-appearance of the complaint before this Forum. In fact, an execution was pending before this Forum, between the same parties and now, said execution has been decided and due to misunderstanding is nothing down the next date of hearing the aforesaidcomplaint has been dismissed on 07.08.2018. Lastly, prayer has been made that OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.6,31,000/- alongwith interest @15% from the date of commencement of FDRs till its final realization by passing on award alongwith with compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account deficiency in service and also claimed Rs.50,000/- litigation.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and thereafter failed to appeared and deposit of cost and ultimately were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 05.08.2019. After that, the OPs No.1 & 2 allowed to join the proceedings vide order dated 27.04.2021.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

4. Rejoinder filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the ascase file very carefully.

6. The first point of consideration is that the second complaint is maintainable or not? To resolve this issue, in view of the law laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court inCIVIL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2016 “INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANYv. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.” Decided on 27.01.2016.It was held that thesecond complaint, after the first had been dismissed in default was competent before the Fora under the Act is maintainable.

7. The argument of OP is that complaint is not maintainable. In this Commission as it has no jurisdiction to decide this matter regarding recovery of amount. We are not agree with this argument of OPs because complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.6,31,000/- with OPs as per assurances given by them. The complainant availed the services of OPs and she is consumer of OPs. The complainant filed the present complaint at Jalandhar and she also availed services of OPs at Jalandhar. Therefore, the present complaint is maintainable and this Commission can try & decide the present complaint. Thus, we do not find any force in the submission of OPs.

8. The next argument of OPs is that complaint is time barred. This version of OPs is not acceptable because there is recurring cause accrued in favour of the complainant because until the payment is not made, the cause of action accrued to the complainant day by day and therefore this version of OPs is not having any force in the eyes of law.

9. This fact is admitted by OPs that complainant has deposited Rs.6,31,000/- with them in the shape of FDR on different dates. This fact is also proved from document Ex.C-1 receipt no. 1284 dated01.09.2010. Ex.C-2 receipt No.1327 dated 01.08.2011, Ex.C-3 receipt No.1328 dated 01.08.2011 placed on record by complainant.

10. From perusal of above record, it has transpired that OPs have failed to produce any version as they already proceeded against ex parte. So, the version of complainant through its affidavit and documents is fully believeable.

11. We place reliance on following judgments in support of his case:-

1. Ajit Kaur Jhatu versus The Hazara Co-operative M/P Agri Service Society Ltd and others by District Consumer Forum Jalandhar in Consumer Complaint No. 220 of 2016 decided on 17.09.2019.

2. Dilwar Singh and another versus S.K. Finance Company and another decided by District Consumer Forum SBS Nagar in C.C No. 15 of 2020 decided on 15.07.2020.

3. Surinder Singh versus S.K Finance Company by District Consumer Forum SBS Nagar in CC No. 122 of 2016 decided on 04.03.2016.

4. Suman Lata and another versus M/s Sharma Randev Financers by District Consumer Forum Jalandhar in CC No. 224 of 2015 decided on 22.06.2016.

12. After going through the plethora of judgments and considering the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. By not making any efforts for making maturity value to the complainant, OPs stepped into shoes for forfeiting hard earned money of the innocent investors for their own betterment. When the complainant demanded maturity amount of the deposit, in fair terms of business, OPs were required to pay the same. But by not doing so, they have indulged in unfair trade practice. Moreover, the Ops have also admitted itself that they all are director/Managing Director of the OPs Companies/Firms.

13. In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint with the direction to OPs to pay the maturity value of deposited amount of FDR i.e. Rs.6,31,000/- (rupees Six Lakh Thirty One Thousand) along with agreed interest @ 15% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and OPs further directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- in legal aid fund of this Commission.

14. Compliance of this order be made by OPs within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

16. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

28^th of September 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)