Delhi

West Delhi

CC/02/814

MEENA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM MOHAN FINANCIAL SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:  28.11.2002

Complaint Case. No.814/02                                       Date of order : 07.10.2017

 

IN  MATTER OF

 Meena Devi, House no.A-1/73 Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

Complainant

VERSUS

Ram Mohan Financial services ltd., WZ-224, Hastsal Road  Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

                  Opposite party

 

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Smt. Meena Devi named above herein the complainant has brought the present complaint against Ram Mohan Financial services ltd. herein the opposite party stating that she deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with the opposite party for twelve months on interest @ 15% per annum. The opposite party issued fixed deposit receipts no.2666 and 2674 dated 04.12.1999 and 20.12.1999 respectively with maturity dates 04.12.2000 and 20.12.2000 respectively. On maturity of the fixed deposits the complainant returned the fixed deposit receipts to the opposite party for payment of the principal with interest. But when the complainant did not receive payment even after maturity of the fixed deposits the complainant approached the opposite party several times for payment. But the opposite party refused to make payment. Hence the present complaint with directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,80,000/- of the FDRs with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till actual realization.

            After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not come with clean hands and concealed material facts. The complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is abuse of process of law. The complainant has been dealing with the opposite party since long and had good relation with the opposite party. The opposite party gave post dated cheques to the complainant to discharge the deposits. The complainant in last week of November 2000 visited office of the opposite party and requested for payment of the amount of the FDRS in cash. The opposite party was not having adequate cash, therefore, requested the complainant to come on 4^th of December 2000 to collect the cash. The complainant on 04.12.2000 came in the office of the opposite party. The opposite party paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant in cash as interest of the fixed deposit as the amount of fixed deposit had been already paid to the complainant. The opposite party asked the complainant to return cheque no. 077899 dated  04.12.2000   for

Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque no. 077900 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.80,000/-. The complainant told the opposite party that she forgot to bring the cheques. She will return the cheques within a day or two. The opposite party without apprehending any dishonest motive on the part of the complainant gave 1,80,000/- in cash in discharge of the FDRS on return of original FDRS by the complainant to the opposite party. She also executed a cash voucher of Rs.1,80,000/- dated 04.12.2000 in favor of the  opposite party. But the complainant became dishonest and filed the present false and frivolous complaint. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party controverting stand of the opposite party reiterating her stand taken in the complaint and asserted that the opposite party has failed to pay amount of the FDRs with interest. She did not receive any amount of the FDRs with interest and also did not execute any voucher. She once again prayed for directions to the opposite party.

            When the complainant was asked to lead evidence she tendered in evidence her affidavit narrating facts of the complaint.

            When the opposite party was asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri B.D. Dhamija Director narrating facts of their reply. The opposite party also relied upon voucher dated 04.12.2000 and photocopies of cheque no. 077899 dated 04.12.2000 for Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque no. 077900 dated 20.12.2000 for Rs.80,000/-.

            We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

            Before proceeding further it is worth mentioning here that the voucher dated 04.12.2000 with specimen signatures of Smt. Meena Devi complainant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of NCT of Delhi for comparison of disputed signatures of Smt. Meena Devi complainant on voucher dated 04.12.2000 with specimen signatures of Smt. Meena Devi complainant. Senior assistant/director of Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of NCT of Delhi opined that it is not possible to express any definite opinion on the disputed signatures of Smt. Meena Devi on voucher dated 04.12.2000 with specimen signatures of Smt. Meena Devi complainant.

            Thereafter, the parties were asked to submit specimen signatures of Smt. Meena Devi for the period of 2000 to 2002. But the complainant failed to produce her signatures  for the said period.     

            It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with the opposite party vide receipts  no.2666 and 2674 dated 04.12.1999 and   20.12.1999   respectively   with   maturity   date  04.12.2000  and

 

 

20.12.2000 for one year with interest @ 15% per annum.

            The case of the complainant is that on maturity of the FDRs she approached the opposite party for payment of amount of the FDRs with interest but the opposite party refused to pay the amount of the fixed deposit with interest. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that they paid the amount of the FDRs with interest vide voucher of Rs.1,80,000/- dated 04.12.2000. The disputed signatures of the complainant on the voucher dated 04.12.2000 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of NCT of Delhi  for comparison with specimen signatures of the complainant. But they failed to give any opinion. Therefore, except affidavit of Shri B.D. Dhamija Director of the opposite party there is no other material on record to prove that the opposite party has paid the principal amount with interest of the FDRs to the complainant. The affidavit of Shri B.D. Dhamija Director is rebutted by the affidavit of Smt. Meena Devi complainant. Hence there is no cogent  and convincing material and convinced on record on behalf of the opposite party to prove that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- of the complainant with interest is paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite party failed to prove that the amount of the FDRs with interest is not paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Hence there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

            Therefore, we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant with interest @15% p.a. from date of deposit of the amount with the opposite party till actual realization.

Order pronounced on  07.10.2017

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                      ( R.S.  BAGRI )

    MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT