Punjab

Sangrur

CC/269/2017

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Serve Hit Developers (India) - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Naresh Juneja

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 269

Instituted on:  06.06.2017

                                                                        Decided on:    06.11.2017

 

Narinder Kumar aged about 40 years son of Joginder Singh, resident of Guru Nanak Nagar, Ward No.9B/177, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     Serve Hit Developers (India) Limited, Regd. Office: Mansa Road, Sardulgarh, Distt. Mansa through its C.M.D.

2.     Serve Hit Developers (India) Limited, Dhuri Road Bridge, Near Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Exparte.    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

           

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Narinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, the complainant availed the services of the Ops on 29.1.2014 by investing an amount of Rs.50,000/- in one time investment (by way of FDR) vide FDR number 00009077 for a period of 36 months and on maturity on 29.1.2017, the Ops were to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.70,000/-.  Further case of the complainant is that on maturity of the FDR the complainant visited the office of the OP at Sangrur, but the same was closed, as such he called the CMD of the company through his mobile, who assured that the amount would be paid, but the amount was not paid despite sending the requisite documents to the Ops through registered post on 7.3.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum  from the date of maturity till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the Ops did not appear, as such, the Ops were proceeded exparte.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of application, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of FDR, Ex.C-5 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of PAN card, Ex.C-7 copy of aadhar card, Ex.C-8 copy of account passbook and Ex.C-9 copy of blank stamp paper and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Ops on 29.1.2014 for the period of 36 months and in turn the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 29.1.2017 on maturity, as is evident from the copy of registration letter on record Ex.C-4. The complainant has further stated that though he submitted all the required documents  with the Ops vide registered letter, as is evident from the copy of postal receipt Ex.C-5, but the OPs have failed to repay the maturity amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant without assigning any reason. It is worth mentioning here that the Ops chose to remain exparte and have not come forward to contest the complaint. In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops are duty bound to return him the promised amount on maturity and by not doing so  the Ops are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

 

6.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 29.01.2017 till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3500/- on account of compensation and further Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.

 

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

Pronounced.

 

                November 6, 2017.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member

                                                       

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                 Member