Haryana

Kaithal

10/21

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarvotam Hi-Tech Infra Developers Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Raj Kamal Dhull

06 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           10 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:             08.01.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:                06.12.2023.

 

Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Mewa Ram, r/o VPO Sanch, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Sarvotam Hi-Tech Infra Developers Ltd., H.O. 1-2, Deep Complex, IInd Floor Court Road, Amritsar, through its Managing Director.
2. Sarvotam Hi-Tech Infra Developers Ltd., HUDA Road, near Mini Secretariat, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
3. Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Jagdish Chand, r/o VPO Sanch, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Raj Kamal Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                    Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

                   Shri Sethpal Rawat, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER – SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the OPs company is having investment plan which is known as Plan R1-T007/6 years and as per this plan invested amount is Rs.72,000/- and on maturity complainant investor will get Rs.1,06,853/. OPs agent gave a proposal form to him to invest money in the investment plan of OP for a term of 6 years at Kaithal office and he accepted the same and agreed to adopt the said scheme vide Agreement No.H00021564 dated 31.01.2014 and her wife Smt. Krishan Kaur was appointed at his nominee. As per terms and conditions of the said investment, he deposited in 12 half yearly installments @ Rs.5700/- per installment without any default with OP No.2 i.e. authorized agent of OPs company. The net value on completion of said investment plan was Rs.106853/-. After depositing the total installments, he approached the OPs for getting the maturity/net value along with original investment agreement and other papers, but OPs are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and in this regard, he got issued a legal registered notice dated 27.11.2020 through his counsel Shri Raj Kamal Dhull to OPs, but they neither replied the same nor paid the required amount, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement, whereas, OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear before this Commission, on the respective date fixed i.e. 23.2.2021 and 27.04.2021, despite receipt of notices of this Commission, as such, OPs No.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex-parte, on that dates, by this Commission.

4.                OP No.3, in its written statement, stating therein that there is many crucial question are involved, which can be decided after leading cogent evidence before the Civil Court and same cannot be decided in a summary trial.
5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-CW1 to Annexure-CW4.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1A.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs company is having investment plan which is known as Plan R1-T007/6 years and as per this plan invested amount is Rs.72,000/- and on maturity complainant investor will get Rs.1,06,853/- vide Agreement No.H00021564 dated 31.01.2014. He further argued that as per terms and conditions of the said investment, the complainant deposited in 12 half yearly installments @ Rs.5700/- per installment without any default with OP No.2. He further argued that after depositing the total installments, the complainant approached the OPs for getting the maturity/net value along with original investment agreement and other papers, but OPs are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that there is many crucial question are involved, which can be decided after leading cogent evidence before the Civil Court and same cannot be decided in a summary trial and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

10.              Admittedly the complainant had invested Rs.72,000/- in a Plan/Term R1-T007, with OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3 agent, with 12 half yearly installments of Rs.5700/-, having maturity amount of Rs.1,06,853/- on 31.01.2020, vide Registration No.H00021564 dated 31.01.2014, as is evident from Proposal Form Annexure CW3. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had paid all the 12 installments regularly with OP No.2, vide account statement Annexure CW4.

11.              The grievance of the complainant is that after maturity of said investment on 31.01.2020, he approached OPs No.1 & 2, for getting the maturity/net value along, but they are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

12.              From the above pleadings of the complainant, we found that the complainant had invested the total amount of Rs.72,000/- with OPs No.1 & 2, through OP No.3. OP No.3 is only an agent of OPs No.1 & 2. Accordingly, the grievance of the complainant is mainly against OPs No.1 & 2, with whom he invested the said amount and after its maturity, they did not release the maturity amount to him. However, it is pertinent to mention here that OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear, before this Commission, despite receipt of notices, from this Commission, time and again and were opted to be proceeded against ex-parte. Hence, the case of complainant, which was duly supported by oral as well as documentary evidence CW-1 to CW-4, goes unrebutted and unchallenged, against OPs No.1 & 2, due to lack of any documentary evidence, produced by them, on the case file.

13.              So, keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that on 31.01.2014, the complainant had invested total sum of Rs.72,000/-, with OPs No.1 & 2, under Plan No.R1-T007 for 6 years and after the maturity period of six years i.e. on 31.01.2020, the complainant approached OPs No.1 & 2, with a request to release the maturity amount of Rs.1,06,853/-, but OPs No.1 & 2 failed to release the same till today, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. Hence, OPs No.1 & 2 are liable to release the total maturity amount of Rs.1,06,853/-, to the complainant along with compensation amount and litigation expenses.

14.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismiss the same against OP No.3. We direct OPs No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, to make the payment of Rs.1,06,853/-, to the complainant, along with interest @6% per annum, from the date of this order, till its realization. OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant. OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to make compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order.

15.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:06.12.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.