We proceed, by highlighting the facts through which the complainant S.Gurdial Singh has sought the return/repayment of his Deposited/Invested Money in FDRs (fixed deposits) by the titled opposite parties with amounts aggregating to Rs.3,05,000/- along with the accrued interest @ 18 % PA besides an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for illegal, unfair, negligent and deficient acts and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation, all in the interest of justice.
2. The backdrop of the case in brief is that the complainant was approached by the opposite party finance company's office-bearers/representatives including the OP1 to OP3 introducing their attractive Deposit Schemes assuring very good returns and thus motivated/attracted and allured the complainant to deposit his saving/amounts to earn handsome interests etc. Like many others, the complainant also invested/deposited various amounts with the opposite parties in the 4 Nos. of different Fixed Deposit schemes as per the details furnished/provided in the complaint and the receipts duly produced during its proceedings. Upon maturity, the amount Rs.3,40,000/- of the deposits became due in the year 2009, the complainant approached the opposite parties to receive back their principal amounts along with the accrued interest at the promised/documented rates but they paid only Rs.35,000/- to them. After 18.3.2015 he and his wife approached the opposite parties and requested them to release the maturity value of FDRs alongwith quarterly interest but no amount was repaid all this time on one pretext or the other and finally just 5 days before filing of the present complaint the OPs have flatly and finally refused the repayment of the maturity and/or principal amounts of the deposits affording the requisite cause of action to the complainant and giving prompt to the present complaint with the desired relief as prayed herein above.
3. The requisite Notice/Summons was duly served upon the titled opposite parties no.1 & 3 that were duly returned un-served with the postal authorities remarks as: “REFUSED’ for both the OP1 and the OP3 thus the OP1 and the OP3 were ordered to be proceeded against ‘ex-parte’ vide orders dated 26.10.2015.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.2 as he has no direct or indirect concern into the matter as at present he is not the Director of the opposite party no.3 i.e. Sarvotam Credits & Finance td., Simble Chowk, Batala; the complaint filed by the complainant is infructuous one and without any locus standi against the opposite party no.2 which is liable to be dismissed as the complainant was not consumer of the opposite party no.2 and no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the opposite party no.2 as such same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was denied that the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.1 ever contacted said complainant and his alleged wife Smt.Gurtinder Kaur who died on 18.08.2015, nor the opposite parties known to them personally as alleged. It was also denied that no such assurance as alleged given by the opposite party no.2 to the complainant. The investment of any amount with the opposite party no.2 by the complainant if any was with his will and without any assurance of the opposite party no.2. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
6. Upon going through the pleadings as made out in the complaint and as per the apparent tenor of the related Deposit Receipts the four nos. of Deposits were due for payment on 09.07.2009 and Rs.35,000/- had been paid to the complainants on different dates i.e. 10.6.2014, 16.07.2014, 14.09.2014, 12.11.2014, 20.12.2014, 29.01.2015 and 18.3.2015 thus the cause of action having arisen on these very dates and continued throughout with a fresh cause of action having erupted just 5 days before filing of the present complaint i.e., on 18.08.2015 when the OPs finally refused to repay back the maturity amounts of the above five nos. of the FDRs.
7. The intentional non-appearance during the complaints’ proceedings by the opposite party no.1 & 3 by way of flat ‘refusal’ of even the acceptance of the Summons/Notice affords the legal presumption (by the time a well settled Law by virtue of a plethora of Superior Courts’ Judgments) that the respondents/opposite parties have no legal plea and/or other evidentiary material etc to prosecute their defence and in a way that amounts to an implicit admission of their guilt. However, opposite party no.3 was an employee being part time Accountant of the opposite party and having no direct concern with the opposite party no.1 & 3 as such he cannot be held liable for the refund.
8. In the light of the all above we hold the opposite parties No.1 & 3 guilty of having infringed the consumer rights of the complainant in the Consumer Complaints through adherence to unfair trade practices amounting to deficiency in service and thus while partly accepting the present complaint, we ORDER the titled opposite parties No.1 & 3 to pay jointly and severally the maturity value of all these FDRs amounting to Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest @ 9% PA from the respective date of maturity of each FDR till actually paid in full besides Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the complainants shall be at liberty to file execution U/s 27 of the Act, for the requisite compliance.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges.
After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
April 28, 2016 Member.
*MK*
