BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.224 of 2015
Date of Instt. 27.05.2015
Date of Decision : 22.06.2016
1.Suman Lata wife of Amrik Singh R/o VPO Ariyawal, District Kapurthala.
2.Neeru @ Narjit Kaur wife of Sushil Kumar, R/o B-6/15, Rishi Nagar, Goraya, District Jalandhar.
3.Nisha @ Rajneesh wife of Sukhdev Singh Dalwar R/o 15, Kemp.Sons Grove Sedge Moor Park Bilston-W.V.149 Y.D., England.
..........Complainants
Versus
1.M/s Sharma Randev Financiers (Regd) through its Chairman Gulzar Singh, Managing Director Subash Sharma Ramesh Sharma.
2.M/s Sharma Group of Finance Company M/s S.S.Agro Service, 201, Sunrise Apartment, Deol Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar, Punjab, India.
3.M/s MBTS Construction Co.Grand Amstlveen Hotel, Mercury Hotel Havilei, Indian Restaurant, 501-501 II, M00-South Amstrdam, Holland.
Directors:- Sandeep Sharma, Reshma Harbaksh Singh, Manvinder Singh Pawar, Nirwail Singh Rana.
Sharma Group of Finance Company, Shastri Market, Jalandhar, 2nd Address:- S-60, Ram Chambers, Ladowali Road, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar.
3rd Address Sharma Group of Finance Companies, Canal Bridge, near DAV Collge, GT Road, Jalandahr R/o 94-95, Mann Nagar, Wadala Chowk, Jalandhar.
4.Janak Shamra wife of Subash Sharma
5.Meenu Sharma wife of Ramesh Shamar.
6.Sandeep Sharma
herein called after Directors of M/s Sharma Randev Financier (Regd) Canal Bridge, near DAV College, GT Road, Jalandhar.
…...... Opposite party No.1.
2. Reserve Bank of India, through D.G.M., Reserve Bank of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
…...... Opposite party No.2.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Bachan Lal Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainants invested their money in the shape of FDRs with OPs from time to time and got the said FDRs renewed from OP No.1. Complainants submitted that OP No.1 through its directors have received a sum of Rs.15,31,000/- from the complainant w.e.f 5.7.2009 to 1.8.2011 and issued FDR No.113 dated 5.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.4 Lacs in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 for a sum of Rs.2 Lacs in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 in the name of Neeru @ Narjit Kaur complainant No.2 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 in the name of Nisha complainant No.3 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac, FDR No.1284 dated 1.9.2010 in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1 from Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar for a sum of Rs.4 Lacs, FDR No.1327 dated 1.8.2011 for sum of Rs.2 Lacs in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1 from Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar and FDR No.1328 dated 1.8.2011 for sum of Rs.31,000/- in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1. All these FDRs were issued with promise to pay interest @15% per annum from the date of investment till the date of maturity. Complainants further submitted that OP No.1 company is registered one, as such have authority to collect the deposits as per norms of RBI. OP No.1 did not return the amount of the complainants after maturity of aforesaid FDRs. OP No.2 has also washed away their hands and did not take any action against OP No.1. Complainants also served legal notice dated 22.10.2014 through registered post. Complainants submitted that OP No.1 has played fraud with the complainant. They have usurped the hard earned money of the complainant. On such averments, the complainants have prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.15,31,000/- alongwith interest. They have also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of their complaint, complainant Suman Lata has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed evidence.
4. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsel for the complainant.
5. From the averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainants, it stands fully proved on record that complainants invested their money in the shape of FDRs with OP No.1 from time to time and got the said FDRs renewed from OP No.1. Complainants submitted that OP No.1 through its directors have received a sum of Rs.15,31,000/- from the complainant w.e.f 5.7.2009 to 1.8.2011 and issued FDR No.113 dated 5.7.2009 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.4 Lacs in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C3 for a sum of Rs.2 Lacs in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C4 in the name of Neeru @ Narjit Kaur complainant No.2 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac, FDR No.113 dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C5 in the name of Nisha complainant No.3 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac, FDR No.1284 dated 1.9.2010 Ex.C6 in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1 from Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar for a sum of Rs.4 Lacs, FDR No.1327 dated 1.8.2011 Ex.C7 for sum of Rs.2 Lacs in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1 from Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar and FDR No.1328 dated 1.8.2011 Ex.C8 for sum of Rs.31,000/- in the name of Suman Lata complainant No.1. All these FDRs were issued with promise to pay interest @15% per annum from the date of investment till the date of maturity. Complainants further submitted that OP No.1 company is registered one, as such have authority to collect the deposits as per norms of RBI. OP did not return the amount of the complainant after maturity of aforesaid FDRs. OP No.2 has also washed away their hands and did not take any action against OP No.1. Complainants also served legal notice dated 22.10.2014 Ex.C9 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C10. Complainant also approached OP No.2 as well as Addl. Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh but they also did not take any action against the OP No.1. Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that OP No.1 has played fraud with the complainant. They have usurped the hard earned money of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
6. Complainants proved the averments of the complaint through affidavit of Suman Lata complainant No.1 Ex.CA and produced on record FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 issued by Sharma Randev Financiers (Regd), Jalandhar i.e. OP No.1 and FDRs E.C6 to Ex.C8 issued by some firm Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar and complainants also proved on record copy of registered legal notice Ex.C9, postal receipts Ex.C10, complaint filed to ADGP Chandigarh Ex.C13, another legal notice Ex.C14, postal receipts Ex.C15 and Ex.C16, one title of Sharma Group of Finance Companies Ex.C17 and baster of firm Sharma Group of Finance Companies Ex.C18. The evidence produced on record by complainants remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service to contest the complaint filed by the complainants nor any person on behalf of the OPs dared to file any affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainants.
7. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainants got FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 from OP No.1. These FDRs were issued by OP No.1 in favour of the complainants. FDR Ex.C1 dated 5.7.2009 was issued by OP No.1 in favour of complainant No.1 Suman Lata for Rs.4 Lacs with date of maturity 4.7.2014, with rate of interest 15%. OP No.1 also issued FDR dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C2 in favour of complainant No.1 Suman Lata for a sum of Rs.1 Lac for five years with date of maturity 1.8.2014, with rate of interest 15%. Complainant No.1 also got FDR Ex.C3 dated 1.8.2009 for a sum of Rs.2 Lacs with date of maturity 1.8.2014 with rate of interest 15%. Complainant No.2 got FDR from OP No.1 dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C4 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac for five years term with date of maturity 1.8.2014 with rate of interest 15%. Similarly, complainant No.3 got FDR dated 1.8.2009 Ex.C5 from OP No.1 for Rs.1 Lac for five year term with date of maturity 1.8.2014 with rate of interest 15%. Complainants proved these FDRs issued by OP No.1. These FDRs were issued by OP No.1 in favour of the complainant but they failed to return the amount of these FDRs to the complainants on the date of maturity and thereafter. Therefore, OP No.1 is liable to return the amount of maturity of these FDRs to the complainant on the date of maturity but they did not pay the same, thereafter, OP No.1 is liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of these FDRs to the complainants @ 9% per annum i.e. general prevalent rate of interest on FDRs being given by nationalized banks, from the date of maturity of the FDR till the payment is made to the complainant.
8. As regards the role of OP No.2 Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter called RBI) is concerned, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.2 RBI. Nor complainant could produce any document that OP No.2 RBI was liable for any acts or omission of OP No.1. Complainants have also failed to prove on record the registration of OP No.1 with OP No.2 RBI nor the complainants could produce any terms and conditions of said registration, thereby, OP No.2 RBI shall be held liable for the acts done by OP No.1. Therefore, for the acts done by OP No.1, OP No.2 RBI could not be held liable. However, OP No.1 is liable to return the maturity amount of the FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 to the complainants and thereafter from the date of maturity, the OP No.1 has illegally with held the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs and did not pay to the complainants respectively. So, OP No.1 is also liable to pay the interest on the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs to the complainants @9% per annum from the date of maturity till the payment is made to the complainants.
9. As regards FDRs Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 issued by one firm Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar in favour of complainant No.1 Suman Lata, complainant has not made said firm Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar as party in the present complaint nor the complainant could produce any evidence to prove that firm Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar had any link with OP No.1. So, present complaint against firm Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar is not maintainable because this Forum could not pass any order against any firm which is not made party in the present complaint and said Forum/firm was not given any opportunity of being hard. So, complaint regarding theses FDRs Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 is hereby held not maintainable. Complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint against firm Sharma-Pawar Advances (Regd), Jalandhar regarding these FDRs Ex.C6 to Ex.C8.
10. Consequently, we allow this complaint partly against OP No.1. Thereby, OP No.1 is held liable to return the maturity amount of FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 to the complainants respectively. OP No.1 is also held liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 @9% per annum from the date of maturity of individual FDR till the payment is made to the complainants. OP No.1 is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the complainants to the tune of Rs.3000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
22.06.2016 Member Member President
