Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/46/2023

Prem Lal Sharma S/o Rameshwar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pushpinder Panchal

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.        46 of 2023.

                                                                    Date of institution: 15.02.2023.

                                                                    Date of decision:    07.08.2023.

 

Prem Lal Sharma son of Sh. Rameshwar Dass, resident of Haripur Jattan, Mehlanwali, Teh. Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar 135003. Aadhar Card No.3056 4097 5835.

 

                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1.       Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Luchnow-226024.

2.      Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, near Reliance Petrol Pump, Above Dhiman Furniture, 1^st floor, Bye-pass Road, Yamuna Nagar-135001 through its Branch Manager.

3.    Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 84 A, Phase-5, Sector 58, Shahi Majra, Mohali (Punjab), through its Area Manager.

….Respondents.

 

CORAM:    GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   JASVINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

                                     

Present:       Sh. Pushpender Panchal, Adv. for the complainant.

                    Opponent No.2 ex-parte.

                    (Notice of complaint was not ordered against opponents No.1&3).

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.            Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4, brief facts of the complaint are, the Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, (for short Society) is registered under the provisions of the Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Act, 2002 (for short Society Act) and the Society is having one of its branch offices at Yamuna Nagar (for short opponent No.2). The complainant placed on record FDRs Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 and on perusal of the FDR Ex.C4, it has been noticed that the FDR Ex.C3 is in the name of the complainant Prem Lal Sharma, but the FDR Ex.C4 is in the name of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma and Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma is not impleaded as complainant in the present complaint, nor the complainant in the complaint has pleaded, how he related to the present complaint. In this way, the complainant Prem Lal Sharma invested amount of Rs.20,150/- on 26.03.2018 by way of FDR Ex.C.3 for period of 36 months i.e. date of maturity was 26.03.2021 (however, no date of maturity and amount of maturity has been mentioned on the FDR), but the complainant pleaded total principal amount + point in the sum of Rs.46,250/- on 26.03.2018 by way of FDR Ex.C3 for the period of 36 months i.e. date of maturity was 26.03.2021 (however, no date of maturity and amount of maturity has been mentioned on the FDR) and after maturity, it was agreed by the opponents, that they will pay Rs.70,762/- to the complainant on the date of maturity i.e. 26.03.2021, but the opponents failed to make the payment of the same on the date of maturity and thereafter also, which according to the complainant, is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent society, which caused him mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constrained him to file the present complaint.

3.             On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponent No. 2 failed to appear before this Commission, either in person or through any Advocate, nor filed written statement within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the complaint/gaining the knowledge regarding pendency of the complaint and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2023.

4.             Sh. Pushpender Panchal, Adv. for the complainant, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance on case law titled Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC); M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018. 

5.            The moot question before the Commission, is whether the opponents committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent and against whom?

6.              The opponent No. 2 failed to appear before this Commission, despite receipt of notice of the complaint/gaining the knowledge regarding pendency of the complaint, nor filed written statement within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice/knowledge regarding pendency of complaint, therefore, version of the complainant goes unrebutted. Non-contesting of the complaint by the opponent No.2 means, the opponents had nothing to say in their defence and there is no ground to disbelieve the version of the complainant. As per FDR Ex.C.3, the complainant invested total amount of Rs.20,150/-, but in para No.2 of the complaint, the complainant pleaded, total principal amount + point in the sum of Rs.46,250/-, which was to be paid by the opponents to the complainant on its maturity i.e.26.03.2021 in the sum of Rs.70,762/-, no date and amount of maturity is mentioned on the FDR Ex.C3, but the same has not been controverted by the opponent No.2, while appearing or filing written statement before this Commission. As already observed hereinbefore, version of the complainant goes unrebutted, it means the maturity amount written by the complainant in para No.2 of his complaint i.e. Rs.46,250/- qua FDR Ex.C.3 is correct and believable and the complainant is entitled to Rs.46,250/- qua FDR Ex.C.3, which has not paid by the opponents to the complainant on its date of maturity. The opponents failed to pay the same to the complainant till date and the opponents kept the amount of the FDR Ex.C.3 for considerable time, therefore, it amounted to an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices. Apart from making payment of maturity amount of Rs.46,250/- qua FDR Ex.C.3 to the complainant, the opponent No.2 is also liable to be burdened with punitive damages and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) are awarded against the opponent No.2 to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, financial loss, litigation cost, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

7.            So far FDR Ex.C4 is concerned, this FDR is in the name of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma, who is not the complainant, nor the complainant in his complaint pleaded, how he related to the present complaint, so complaint qua FDR Ex.C4, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

8.          Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is accepted against the opponent No.2, holding it liable to make payment of maturity amount in the sum of Rs.46,250/- qua FDR Ex.C.3 (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) to the complainant + amount of punitive damages in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to compensate the complainant in all heads, total Rs.61,250/- (46,250+15,000) (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) to the complainant, within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order by the opponent No.2, in default of it, the opponent No.2 shall be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum on the total award amount from the date of order till its actual realization. Complaint qua FDR Ex.C4 is dismissed being not maintainable and said Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma or his beneficiary shall be at liberty to file afresh complaint raising claim if any, against the opponent based on this FDR. The complainant is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order to the opponent No. 2 through registered post or email, whatsoever the mode, at his own responsibility. The original documents placed on record returned to the complainant or his counsel against proper receipt, after photocopy of the same retained on record. 

9.               File be consigned to the records. 

Dated: 07.08.2023.

(GULAB SINGH)

                                                                   Distt. & Sessions Judge (VRS),

                                                                              PRESIDENT,

                                                                              DCDRC, YNR.

          (JASVINDER SINGH)

          MEMBER.

 

 

Typed by Jitender Sharma, Steno-typist.