BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 851 of 12.12.2014.
Date of Decision: 05.08.2015
Vijay Kumar son of Shri Ram Rattan, resident of House no.399, Mohalla Bajra, Distt. Ludhiana.
.… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Unitech Limited, Regd. Office: 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director/Directors.
2. M/s. Unitech Limited, FD Office: Fixed Deposit Division, Unitech House, L-Block, South City-1, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana through its Head.
3. M/s. Unitech Limited, FD Office: Fixed Deposit Division, 2nd Floor, Plot No.3, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122016.
4. M/s. Unitech Ltd., 1st Floor, SCO 189-190-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its Regional Manager.
5. M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., “Karvy Center” 8-2-609/K, Avenue 4, Street No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 through its Managing Director/Director.
6. M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., SCO 136, First Floor, Above Airtel Showroom, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001 through its Branch Manager.
…..Opposite party
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.G. K. Dhir, President
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Present: Sh. Rishi Khanna, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 to 4 exparte.
Sh.Pardeep Kumar Soni, Deputy Manager for OP5 and OP6.
ORDER
PER SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed Vijay Kumar son of Shri Ram Rattan, resident of House no.399, Mohalla Bajra, Distt. Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s. Unitech Limited, Regd. Office: 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director/Directors and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- with a prayer to issue directions to the OPs to release the amount of FDR of Rs.25,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and deficiency of service on the part of OPs besides Rs.10,000/- and legal expenses and Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the representative of OP6 approached the complainant and told that OP5 and 6 are doing the work as broker/investment consultants and dealing in distribution of mutual funds/IPOs, stock broking etc. and the OPs pay more interest than the other financial institutions. Getting allured, the complainant got FDR issued from OP1 to OP4 at the instance of OP6. The amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the complainant through cheque No.478118 dated 03.04.2013 issued from his account No.55008470301 maintained in State Bank of Patiala, Saban Bazar, Ludhiana. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the interest was to be paid to the complainant on quarterly basis at the rate of 11.50% p.a. and in this regard, OP1 had issued post dated cheques of interest amount and the said amount was duly credited in the above said account of the complainant by the OPs. That on 03.04.2014 i.e. the maturity date of the said FDR, the OPs did not disburse the said amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. The complainant approached the OPs and requested to disburse the amount of Rs.25,000/- and as per the demand of the OPs, the complainant sent the original FDR to OP3 through post on dated 12.03.2014. When after 15 days , the complainant approached the OPs, the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and the OPs have failed to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant despite various requests made by him and also despite the personal visits to OP6 and also despite lodging complaint on telephone No.01244697800, 01724686200 and 04023312454 on various dates. The OPs have illegally and malafidely withheld the FDR amount of complainant and have also not paid any interest w.e.f. 03.04.2014. Thus, claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP1 to OP4 but they did not appear in the court and were accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.03.2015. However, OP5 and OP6 appeared and filed written statement. It is alleged that OP5 and OP6 are acting only as a processing agency/form collection agent between the complainant and OP1 to 4 and its role is limited to receiving the application form/documents from the clients and forwarding it to the fixed deposit companies for further processing. The OP5 and 6 never forced any client/ or applicant for any investment purpose, it only explains the details of fixed deposit schemes of various companies to them and the client himself/herself selects the appropriate scheme as per his/her necessity or requirement, forwards the application/documents of the client to the respective company of the fixed deposit scheme for the issuance of certificate/further processing. The fixed deposit certificates or the maturity payment amounts are sent directly to the applicants/certificate holders at their addresses by the OP1 to OP4 only. OP5 and OP6 are only a performa party in this case and the case is not maintainable against them. It is further alleged that it is only the OP1 to OP4 who issue the deposit certificates as well as make the payment of maturity/interest amounts to the certificate holders/clients, OP5 and 6 do not have any such rights or authority and the complainant had received the fixed deposit certificate as well as OP5 and 6. The complaint is not maintainable and be dismissed against them.
4. Evidence was adduced by the complainant by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint along with affidavit of Sh. Gyan Chand being his witness Ex. CX and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, Sh. Pardeep Soni, Deputy Manager of OP5 and 6 adduced evidence by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex. RA wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and closed the evidence of OP5 and 6.
5. The case was fixed for arguments. Parties failed to file written arguments. Ld. counsel for complainant orally argued that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was invested in the shape of FDR in April, 2013 through OP5 and 6, who processed the entire case and the amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited with OP1 to 4, who issued the FDR as Ex. C6. However, OPs went on depositing quarterly interest in the account of the complainant maintained with State Bank of Patiala Ex. C5. At first instance Rs.701/- was deposited as interest on 11.07.2013 and thereafter deposited Rs.725/- on 23.10.2013 and Rs.725/- on 17.01.2014. The last deposit was of Rs.16/- as interest on 11.04.2014. While the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been repaid by OP1 to 4. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant approached Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi, who directed the company to pay FDs as per order of maturity. As to premature deposits, the company has to pay giving priority to date of maturity and date of complaint received by CLB, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the company and by other Government Authorities.
6. Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Sh. Pardeep Soni, Deputy Manager of OP5 and 6 argued that OP5 and 6 were simply rendering the services of brokering and as such, they are not liable for any act or omission on the part of Op1 to OP4 because the entire investment was made by complainant with OP1 to OP4.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of parties and also perused the entire record placed on file.
8. It is evident that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the OPs 1 to 4 through OP5 and 6 for the period 03.04.2013 to 03.04.2014 vide FDR receipt Ex. C6. It is also observed that opposite parties No.1 to 4 have deposited Rs.701/- as interest on 11.07.2013, Rs.725/- on 23.10.2013 and Rs.725/- on 17.01.2014. The last deposit was of Rs.16/- as interest on 11.04.2014. There is no evidence on record to show that the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- has been refunded to the complainant. Though OP5 and 6 are only the processing agency/form collection agent between the complainant and OP1 to 4 but at the same time it was incumbent on them to assist the complainant in getting the sum of Rs.25,000/- refunded as principal amount. OP1 to 4 were proceeded against exparte, meaning thereby they have nothing to say in their defence and as such, are found to be deficient in service for not refunding the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant after maturity.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP1 to 4 are directed to refund the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, if already not refunded. However, OP5 and 6 are also held liable for not processing the case of the complainant with OP1 to 4 for the refund of the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. OP1 to 4 as well as OP5 and 6 are jointly liable to pay half and half the costs of Rs.2,500/- as compensation on account of harassment to the complainant besides Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses. OP1 to OP4 are further directed to pay interest @7% per annum on the amount of Rs.25,000/- from 04.04.2014 till realization of dues. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of order. Certified copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(S.P.Garg) (G.K.Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:05.08.2015
Gobind Ram
