Punjab

Sangrur

CC/619/2016

Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SCF Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Naresh Juneja

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 619                                                                                        

                                                                    Instituted on:  14.10.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    03.02.2017

 

Raghbir Singh aged about 72 years son of Sh. Gurdial Singh resident of Village and P.O. Sarinh, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

1.       SCF Finance Ltd. SCO No.36, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market Uppli Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.       SCF Finance Ltd. ( Head Office) 209 Syall Complex, above HDFC Bank, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.  

        ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Naresh Juneja 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.             Raghbir Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he  invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  in the shape of FDR with OPs on 17.09.2010 for a period of 72 months. After maturity period the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.2,03,000/-. On 14.09.2016 the complainant submitted FDR with the OP no.1 and requested to pay the said amount within time but OPs failed to pay the same till today. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.2,03,000/- along with interest @18% per annum till payment,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.100000/- in the shape of FDR with the OPs.  It is stated that when the complainant has not deposited any amount with the OPs in the shape of FDR then the question of paying the amount of Rs.2,03,000/-  to the complainant does not arise . The complainant has not deposited even a single penny with the OPs company then the question of visiting the branches of the OPs for the release of maturity amount does not arise. 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-4 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.1,00,000/-  in the shape of FDR  with OPs on 17.09.2010 which was to be matured on 16.09.2016 which is evident from the fixed deposit receipt Ex.C-3. On the other hand, OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint. It has been specifically denied by the OPs that the complainant did not deposit an amount of Rs.1,00000/-  in the shape of FDR with them. Further the OPs have stated that they did not launch any alleged scheme and the OPs  had not issued any FDR to the complainant.

5.             The complainant has also produced on record  receipt/slip of demand of payment dated 14.09.2016 Ex.C-2 which shows that the complainant has deposited the required documents for release of the payment after maturity period with the OPs.  The said receipt/ slip is also duly signed and stamped by the OPs. But, we failed to understand that when the  copy of  receipt / slip for submission of required documents for release of the payment Ex.C-2 and copy of fixed deposit receipt  Ex.C-3  issued by the OPs are  on record then on what basis  the OPs have denied all facts regarding deposit of the amount and issuance of any receipt 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. 

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint whereas evidence produced on record by the complainant fully proves his case. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs.2,03,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the FDR 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 and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

7.             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

                February 03, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )                              (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                    

Member                                                    President

 

BBS/-