Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/303/2017

VEENA MENGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHREE DURGA FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

OP THAKUR

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICTCONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File No.              268/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution   13/11/2014                

 Date of Decision        15/02/2018

 

 

1.Smt.Veena Mengi,

  W/O Sh.Bansi Lal,

  R/O Village Panthal,

 Tehsil and Distt.Jammu.

2.Sh.Gourav Verma,

  S/O Sh.Yogesh Verma,

 R/O H.No.51/3 Dhakki Sarajan,

 Jammu.                                                                                   Complainants

                             V/S

 

Shree Durga Finance Company ,

Through its Managing Director,

Sh.Bansi Lal Gupta,S/O Sh.Chuni Lal Gupta,

Presently C/O Shree Guru Kirpa Karyana Store,

Panjbakhtar Road,Rajinder Bazar,Jammu.

                                                                                    Opposite party

 

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar                                             Member.

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.O.P.Thakur Advocate, for complainant, present.

Mr.Vivek Sharma,Advocate for OP, present.

 

                                       

ORDER.

 

             Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint, on hand are that; complainants said to have been allured by Sh.Bansi Lal Gupta,Managing Director of Shree Durga Finance Company to make deposits with OP Finance Company, on the  promise to repay the dividends, in the shape of handsome rate of interest, therefore, in consequence to the allurement of Op company, deposit alleged to have been made to the tune of Rs.20,000/and Rs.30,000/ ,respectively, (Annexure/A).Allegation of complainants is that OP paid agreed amount of interest on  the amount deposited by the complainants at the rate of 18% P.A.upto 13/10/2010,however,thereafter OP did not pay interest on the ground of financial crunch. While enumerating miseries, complainants would submit that they suffered a lot, because of non payment of interest, component, as well as, principal amount deposited with OP. Further grievance of complainants is that despite promise to pay interest, as well as, principle amount,OP failed to keep its promise, therefore, same constitutes deficiency in service, resultantly, complainants seeks direction to OP for payment of principal amount to the  tune of Rs.50,000/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.In addition, complainants also prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/

                        On the other  hand,OP filed written version and while resisting the complaint, went on to submit that in the year 2012/13 number of false and frivolous FIR came to be lodged against OP and relevant record was seized, therefore, in absence of record,OP is not in a position to comment as to whether or not alleged  deposit had been made by complainant with OP Company.

               Complainants adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits and affidavit of Yogesh Verma. Complainants have placed on record deposit receipt issued by OP to complainants.

                On  the other hand,OP adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits of Poonam Gupta and Bansi Lal Gupta,respectively.

                Be it noted that from perusal of file it reveals from the date of filing of this complaint Mr.Vivek Sharma,Advocate appeared on behalf of OP till filing of application for cross-examination of complainant’s witness i.e.26/10/2016 and thereafter on,15/11/2016 Mr.Ashish Sharma appeared on behalf of OP and filed his fresh Vakalatnama which is on the file, but when the case was remanded back to this Forum by the Hon’ble State Commission Mr.Vivek Sharma appeared and argued the matter. 

         We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

          To be brief, allegation of complainants is that on being allured by OP,a non/banking finance company, on the promise of handsome payment of interest on deposit, fell  in trap and deposited sum of Rs.50,000/, against proper receipt (Annexure-A),however,OP said to have paid interest upto 13-10-2010,but thereafter, stopped paying interest, so much so, on repeated requests,thereafter,neither paid principal amount nor interest,therefore,alleging deficiency in  service, complainants approached this Forum. On the other hand,OP came up with the defence that relevant record of deposits came to be seized by police in number of false and frivolous FIR,which have been lodged by depositors,therefore,Op is not in a position to comment, as to whether or not deposit had been made by complainants.

                In order to substantiate their allegations, complainants filed their own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of  Yogesh Verma. Complainants in one voice corroborated and supported the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no reiteration. At the same time, complainants also supported their allegation  of deposit being made with OP, by receipt, to the tune of Rs.50,000/ (AnnexureA).On the other hand,Op filed evidence affidavits of Poonam Gupta and,Bansi Lal Gupta  respectively.Both the witnesses deposed that agent of OP used to collect money on daily basis and entry to that effect being  made in the relevant book, which has been seized by police, therefore, are not in a position to comment upon the allegation of complainant.

                           Be it noted that OP did not support its version by documentary proof in order to prove that pendency of investigation as alleged by OP had become obstacle in settling the claim of complainants,therefore,defence raised by OP,short of supportive evidence is unworthy of reliance. At the same time, complainant approached this Forum seeking additional remedy on account of deficiency in service against OP,company,which admittedly was involved in providing financial facilities to its customer, but failure to pay dividends in the  shape of interest, as well as, principal, in our opinion amounts to imperfection and short coming on the part of  OP,therefore,same constitutes deficiency in service and calls for interference.

                     Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainants for redressal of their grievance is allowed and OP is directed to refund Rs.50,000/ (i.e,the amount  deposited by complainants)alongwith interest @ 7% p.a.w.e.f.13/10/2010(i.e.from the date when Op stopped paying interest)to complainants, till its realization. Complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/ for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-, respectively The OP shall comply the order within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

  Order per President                                         Khalil Choudhary

                                                                    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                  President

Announced                                               District Consumer Forum

15/02/2018                                                               Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

 Ms.Vijay Angral          

 Member     

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar,

Member.