Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/48

Paramjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.C.F Finance Ltd. Through its Director Sukhjinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

S. Kesar Singh, Adv

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  48 of 24.08.2017

                                 Date of decision                     :     17.07.2018

 

Paramjit Kaur, aged about 50 years wife of Sh. Manjit Singh, resident of VPO Bhairomajra, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Punjab.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. SCF Finance Ltd. Head Office, Plot No.228, 1^st Floor, Janakpuri Chowk, Industrial Area-A, Link Road, Ludhiana through its Director Sukhjinder Singh

2. Sh. Kewal Kumar, Kothi No.286, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupangar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Kesar Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant 

O.P. No.1 exparte 

Sh. APS Bawa, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.99,300/- to the claimant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, cheating, maltreatment, harassment, humiliation, monetary loss and injury in the reputation to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on the assurance of all the O.Ps., complainant get the FDR bearing No.9617-2010-2011 and FDR bearing NO.9618-2010-2011 dated 28.8.2010 on the payment of Rs.25,000/- each i.e. two FDRs for total amounting to Rs.50,000/-. The O.Ps. received the payment of Rs.50,000/- from the house of the complainant at VPO Bhairomajra, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar and the FDRs were issued at above said office of OP No.2 and the FDRs were handed over to him by the O.P. No. The maturity date of the said FDRs was 28.8.2015 and maturity amount was Rs.90,300/-. On the date of maturity, complainant deposited the original FDR with the O.P. No.2 in its office at Rupnagar, but it refused to give any receipt with regard to deposit of the same. The O.P. No.2 told him that the payment will be released after some days. So the complainant was waiting for some days. But after passing 10/15 days the payment was not made by the O.Ps. The complainant requested the O.Ps. several times but the payment was not given. It is further stated that the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are indulging in unfair trade practice. The FIR was registered against the O.P. No.1 at PS Sadar, Rupnagar, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC for the misappropriation of the payments of the incorrect peoples. The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 harassed, humiliate, cheated and misbehaved with the complainant and indulge in the unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint. 

3.    On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.04.2018.

 3.   On notice, O.P. No.2 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties; that the complainant has no come to the Forum with clean hands and have concealed the material facts from this Ld. Forum. On merits, it is stated that the answering O.P. has no concern with the O.P. No.1 in any manner. The answering O.P. was earlier computer operator with the Singh Land Investment Ltd. It is further stated that the answering O.P. resigned from the Singh Land Investment Limited Company on 31.10.2017 and since then he has no concern whatsoever in that very company. The answering O.P. has never worked with OP No.1. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The O.P. No.2 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/D and closed the evidence.    

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7. Complainant counsel Sh. Kesar Singh argued that with the allurement of O.Ps, complainant invested the money in the shape of FDRs No.9617-2010-2011 & 9618-2010-2011, on payment Rs.25,000/- each total amounting to Rs.50,000/-. On deposit of the said amount the complainant received FDRs with maturity dated 28.8.2015 in which the maturity amount was mentioned Rs.90,300/-. On attaining date of maturity, complainant presented the FDRs with O.P. No.2 in its office at Rupnagar and on deposit complainant was assured that he will received the maturity amount after about 10/15 days. But yet not received till today. Against OP No.1, one FIR was also registered and prayed that OP No.1 did not appear despite notice, whereas OP No.2 though appeared not denied the deposit, issuance of FDRs and its presentation for encashment. Lastly prayed that deficiency on the part of the O.ps. stand proves, the complaint be allowed with cost with the directions to pay the maturity value as well as interest/cost.

8.    Sh. A.P.S. Bawa, counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that so far the local branch of SCF Pvt. Ltd is concern i.e. not related to Mr. Kewal Kumar and no document has come on file qua the appointment of Mr. Kewal Kumar, though his employment was with Singh Land Real Estate & Infratek Limited vide letter Ex.OP2/B w.e.f 3.10.2013 and resign was submitted on 31.10.2017. Lastly prayed that complainant has no concern with Kewal Kumar qua him, the complaint should be dismissed.

9.    Before deciding the controversy, the forum is to appreciate whether it is a consumer dispute and further whether the complaint is maintainable. Complainant has come forward relying upon two documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and its maturity date is 28.8.2015. To rebut these documents O.Ps. did not produce any proof either the said FDRs not belong to SCF Finance Pvt. Ltd or issued somebody else. Maturity date is 28.8.2015, but the present complaint was filed on 24.8.2017, so the complaint is within limitation and it is a consumer dispute, the complaint is maintainable.

10.   Coming to the real controversy, whether complainant is entitled to maturity amount w.e.f. 28.8.2015 to the tune of Rs.90,300/- with interest/cost. It is pertinent to mention that OP No.1 did not appear despite notice and the registered cover was returned with the report "Unclaimed", whereas the OP No.2 served but appear Mr. Kewal Kumar, who by filing the written reply has taken the separate plea firstly he is not in employment with OP No.1, further he was employed with Singh Land Real Estate & Infratek Limited and left the job vide resignation dated 31.10.2017. So the evidence led by the complainant is almost un-rebutted.

11.   Appreciating the photocopies of two FDRs bearing No.9617-2010-2011 & 9618-2010-2011 and its maturity date 28.8.2015. After the maturity date the original FDRs was presented with OP No.2, who assured to return the maturity amount. O.P. did not place on file any document. Whereas the complainant placed on file photocopy of FIR No.63 dated 11.6.2016, registered at PS Sadar, Rupnagar, against O.Ps. OP No.2 placed on file some documents qua resignation/appointment etc. Complainant placed on file two FDRs and its maturity date is 28.8.2015 it was presented for encashment. To rebut this version no evidence from the side of O.P. has come on file. When complainant deposited the money then she certainly entitled of its fruit. So complainant remain successful in proving deficiency on the part of O.Ps.

12.   In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.90,300/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum upon the said amount w.e.f. 1.9.2015 till realization with cost of Rs.5000/-.  

13.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                      (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .17.07.2018                            PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER