DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 334                                                                                       

                                                                   Instituted on:  14.07.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    16.10.2017

Makhan Lal son of Shri Kesho Ram VPO Jaid Patti Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.                                                                       …. Complainant.   

Versus

1. Rani Garg wife of Jiwan Kumar son of Rattan Kumar resident of Jaid Patti Longowal Sangrur.
2. Singland Investment Ltd. 36 Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market Uppli Road Sangrur Punjab through its Manager.
3. Singhland Investments Ltd. 208, 2nd Floor, Syall complex Above HDFC Bank Limited, Ludhiana  through its Manager.
4. Sawinder Singh Kokhar s/o Dalip Singh Chairman Singhland Investment Limited, 208, 2nd Floor, Syall Complex Above HDFC Bank Ludhiana.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri S.S.Dhindsa Advocate                          

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :        Shri J.S.Dhiman, Advocate         

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Makhan Lal complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that under the allurement he invested  an amount of Rs.2,80,800/- ( Rs.7800/- per month) for 36 months with the OPs  and got  FDR/ receipt no. SGN/000188 dated 24.09.2013. The date of maturity of the said FDR was 24.09.2016.  On the due date of FDR, the complainant went to submit the original FDR with the OPs for releasing the amount of FDR  but OP no.1 refused to accept the FDR. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs number of times for release of the maturity amount but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately the OPs refused to pay the policy amount.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to release  the amount of FDR  i.e. Rs.3,24,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant paid Rs.2,80,800/-  and got FDR/receipt from the OP no.1. When the no FDR was made by the OPs then the question of expiry date of agreement does not arise at all. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-43 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and  closed evidence.   

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant invested  an amount of Rs.2,80,800/- ( Rs.7800/- per month) for 36 months with the OPs  and got  FDR/ receipt no. SGN/000188 dated 24.09.2016 and the date of maturity of the said FDR was 24.09.2016 which is evident from copy of FDR Ex.C-2 and receipts of payment Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-43 . From the perusal of the said  FDR and payment receipts, we also find that the date of maturity of the said FDR was 24.09.2016 and the maturity amount of the FDR is Rs.2,80,800/-.  On the other hand, OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint. It has been specifically denied by the OPs that the complainant has deposited  any amount  with them and issuance of any FDR is also denied by the OPs. When the complainant has produced on record copy of FDR and receipts of payment then we failed to understand that on what basis  the OPs have denied all facts regarding deposit of the amount and issuance of any FDR to the complainant. We find that the record/ documents produced on the file clearly show regarding investment of said amount by the complainant with the OPs.

5.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint whereas evidence produced by the complainant on record fully proves her case. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of maturity amount of Rs.3,24,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                October 16, 2017

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )                 (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                    

      Member                                                    President

BBS/-