Haryana

StateCommission

A/947/2015

BAJAJ CAPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIKHA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

GOPAL SHARMA

13 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      947 of 2015

Date of Institution:      28.10.2015

Date of Decision :       13.05.2016

 

1.     Bajaj Capital, United Life Building, F-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its General Manager. 

2.     Bajaj Capital Limited, Opposite Old Civil Hospital, Railway Road, Sonipat, Haryana through its General Manager.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

Versus

 

1.      Shikha Gupta daughter of Shri Jai Bhagwan Gupta, Resident of House No.855/23, Dev Nagar, near Shiva Shiksha Sadan School, Sonipat, through her special power attorney Shri Jai Bhagwan Gupta.

Respondent/complainant

2.      Omnitech Infosolution Limited, Registered Office Omnitech House A-13, Cross Road No.5, Kondivita Lane Marol MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093 through its General Manager.

 

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:              Shri Tarurag Gaur, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Jai Bhagwan Gupta-father of Shikha Gupta- respondent No.1, in person.  

                             Respondent No.2 proforma.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by Bajaj Capital Limited (for short ‘Bajaj Capital’)-Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, against the order dated September 16^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.117 of 2015.

2.      Shikha Gupta-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), invested Rs.1,12,000/- with Bajaj Capital-Opposite Parties No.2 and 3/appellants on 28.09.2012 vide Fixed Deposit Receipt No.1567 for a period of one year. The payment was made through cheque No.0550351 dated 22.09.2012. Broker Proposal Form was provided by opposite party No.3. The maturity amount was Rs.1,25,444/- as on 28.09.2013.   

3.      As per instructions of the opposite parties, the complainant submitted the above said FDR to the opposite party No.3 one month before the date of maturity, for getting the maturity amount. However, the payment was not made to her. Hence complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      Notice being served, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and it was proceeded exparte.

5.      Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 in their joint reply pleaded that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- to them with a request to transmit the same to the opposite party No.1. So, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 were only a broker and having separate legal entity, were not liable to pay the amount to the complainant. Denying the allegations of the complainant, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

6.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the opposite parties No.2 and 3/appellants, as under:-

                   “From the documents Annexure C7, it is established that an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- was deposited by the complainant for one year i.e. with effect from 28.09.2012 to 28.09.2013 with Bajaj Capital Limited, Sonepat and as per document Annexure C6, the maturity amount was Rs.1,25,444/- as on 28.09.2013.  In our view, non-payment of Rs.1,25,444/- even after the maturity period, definitely amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  In our view, there is nexus in between respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and thus, all the respondents jointly and severally are liable to make the payment of Rs.1,25,444/- to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.1,25,444/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of its maturity i.e. 28.09.2013 till its realization.”

7.      The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No.2 and 3 was that since they (appellants) acted as independent brokers/representatives of the complainant in investing the amount with the opposite party No.1, so they cannot held liable to repay the maturity amount of the FDR to the complainant.

8.      The contention raised is not tenable. From the record it is established that the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and the opposite parties No.2 and 3 deposited the same with the opposite party No.1 through the opposite party No. 3.  The complainant got served a legal notice dated January 7^th, 2015 (Exhibit CW-3) upon the opposite parties through her counsel Shri S.P. Kaushik, Advocate. In paragraph No.2 of legal notice Exhibit CW-3, there are specific allegation that the complainant had submitted the FDR to the opposite party No.3 who had signed on the photocopy of the FDR for the said maturity amount on 21.08.2013 at Sonipat Branch Office. There is no denial on behalf of the opposite parties in their reply Exhibit CW-4; they have given a vague reply. Therefore, the allegations are deemed to be correct. Exhibit CW-7 “Statement of Deposit/Rental/Repayment” of Bajaj Capital-Opposite Party/appellant clearly shows that the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- was deposited by the complainant with Bajaj Capital on 28.09.2012 vide FDR No.1567. Annexure R-2 & R-3/B (page 105 of the District Forum file) shows that the original FDR was handed over to the opposite parties on May 18^th, 2015.  Annexure R-2 & 3/E also corroborate the evidence mentioned above.

9.      In view of the above, it is proved that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 (appellants) are liable to pay the maturity amount to the complainant. In view of this, the District Forum was justified in issuing direction to the appellants. No case for interference is made out.

10.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 13.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL