| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2015 Date of Institution: 06-07-2015 Date of Decision: 22-12-2015 S.Ranjit A.E. Singh (aged 45 years) son of S.Swaranjit Singh, resident of Banglow No.15, Cantt. Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Plenthico Pharmaceuticals Limited, having its registered office at A.B.Road, Manglia-453771, Indore (M.P) through its Managing Director/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
- Shri Shashikant Patel, Managing Director Plenthico Pharmaceuticals Limited, having its registered office at A.B.Road, Manglia-453771, Indore (M.P)
- Standard Chartered Bank, Branch The Mall, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Vicky Mehra Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Exparte. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Ranjit A.E. Singh, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that having been allured by representative of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to get higher interest on the FDRs, the complainant had obtained one FDR bearing No. 26712 for Rs.30,000/- having maturity date 20.6.2014 and having maturity value Rs.33,439/-. The complainant made the payment of said FDR through his banker namely Standard Chartered Bank, Mall Road, Amritsar. After receiving the payment from the complainant, the Opposite Parties issued FDR in favour of the complainant, which the complainant had duly received at Amritsar. Said FDR bearing No. 26712 got matured on 20.6.2014 with maturity value of Rs.33,439/- and as such the complainant became entitled to get the maturity value from the Opposite Parties on maturity of the said FDR. After the maturity date of the said FDR, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties so many times, but the Opposite Parties are delaying to release the amount of FDR to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of the matured FDR alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till its realization. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties, so Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of FDR Ex.C2, copy of application form Ex.C3, copy of cheque Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant obtained one FDR bearing No. 26712 for Rs.30,000/- having maturity date 20.6.2014 and maturity value Rs.33,439/- from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The complainant made payment of said FDR through his banker i.e. Opposite Party No.3- Standard Chartered Bank, Mall Road, Amritsar vide cheque dated 13.6.2011 Ex.C4 and application to obtain the FDR is Ex.C3. Said FDR matured on 20.6.2014 and complainant became entitled to the maturity value Rs.33,439/-. The complainant approached Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with the request to release of the maturity value of the said FDR, but Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not release the amount. Then the complainant served legal notice dated 8.6.2015 Ex.C5 upon Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 through registered cover, postal receipts of which are Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, but inspite of the service of the legal notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not pay the maturity value of the aforesaid FDR, to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
- The complainant proved all these averments as taken in the complaint, through his affidavit Ex.C1 and also proved on record the copy of FDR Ex.C2, copy of application form Ex.C3, copy of cheque Ex.C4 and legal notice Ex.C5. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties despite service to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from the Opposite Parties dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant.
- So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant got FDR Ex.C2 dated 21.6.2013 for Rs.30,000/- from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with maturity date 20.6.2014 and maturity value Rs.33,439/-. Said FDR matured on 20.6.2014, but the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not pay maturity value of the FDR in question, to the complainant despite so many requests made by the complainant and despite service of legal notice Ex.C5. So, all this amounts to deficiency of service on the parts of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
- Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant exparte with costs against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the maturity value of FDR in question i.e. Rs.33,439/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity of FDR in question, till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 22-12-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member ; Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question, to the complainant i.e. Rs.38,375/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of Registration certificate of the vehicle in question, NOC from the financiers of the vehicle in question, if any, in favour of the Opposite Party by the complainant, failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest on the insured amount of Rs.38,375/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs.1000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Dated: 21.12.2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
