Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/301/2017

YOGESH VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHREE DURGA FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

OP THAKUR

15 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICTCONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File No.              251/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution    29/10/2014                  

 Date of Decision        15/02/2018

 

 

Sh.Yogesh Verma,

S/O Late Sh.Hari Ram,

R/O H.No.51/3,Dhakki Sarajan,

Jammu.

                                                                                             Complainant

                     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  Chauhan                            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; complainant 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.3.50 lacs, with the OP(Annexure/A).Allegation of complainant is that after the deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs.3.50 lacs,his mother seriously fell it,he was in need of some money for her treatment, complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/ on,12-10-2009 and the said withdrawal has been reflected by OP on the original receipt issued to him. Complainant further submitted that  OP paid interest on  the amount deposited by the complainant at the rate of 18% P.A.upto 30-09-2010,however,thereafter OP did not pay interest on the ground of financial crunch. While enumerating miseries, complainant would submit that his younger son,namely Sourav Verma fell ill, he was suffering from serious disease he could not provide him proper treatment, because of non payment of interest,component,as well as, principal amount deposited with OP. Further grievance of complainant is that unfortunately the son of complainant died on,13-05-2013, despite promise to pay interest, as well as, principle amount,OP failed to keep its promise, therefore, same constitutes deficiency in service, resultantly, complainant seeks direction to OP for payment of principal amount to the  tune of Rs.three lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.In addition, complainant also prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/.

       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.

               Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record original deposit receipt issued by OP to complainant.

                On  the other hand,OP adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits of Bansi Lal Gupta and Poonam 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 Honble 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 complainant 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.3.50, lacs, against proper receipt (Annexure/A),dated,01/08/2009. Allegation of complainant is that after the deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs.3.50 lacs,his mother seriously fell it, he was in need of some money for her treatment, he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/on,12-10-2009 and the said withdrawal has been reflected by OP on the original receipt issued to him.However,OP said to have paid interest upto 30/09/2010,but thereafter, stopped paying interest, so much so, on repeated requests,thereafter,neither paid principal amount nor interest,therefore,alleging deficiency in  service, complainant 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 complainant.

                    In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant in one voice corroborated and supported the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no reiteration. At the same time, complainant also supported his allegation  of deposit being made with OP, by original receipt, dated 01/08/2009 to the tune of Rs.3.50 lacs.On the other hand,Op filed evidence affidavits of Bansi Lal Gupta  and Poonam Gupta,arespectively.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 in so far as allegation of complainant regarding nature of OP Company is concerned, same is not in dispute, as OP admitted that its agent used to collect money on daily basis from different members. Only OP raised defence that relevant book where entry of deposits were being made was seized by police in different FIRs being lodged by the customers. At the same time, complainant supported his complaint by receipt dated,01/08/2009 wherein  amount to the tune of Rs.3.50 lacs is shown to have been deposited in the name of complainant and receipt is issued in the name of OP out of which an amount of Rs.50,000/had been paid to complainant on,12/10/2009.OP did not question the genuineness of receipt(Annexure-A),which further finds support from the evidence affidavit of complainant.Once OP did not deny the genuineness of receipt and the kind of business it was involved, in that event, cannot withheld the amount  indicated in the receipt, which was issued in the name of OP Company(Annexure-A).

                           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 complainant,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 complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and OP is directed to refund Rs.3,00,000(i.e,the amount  deposited by complainant)alongwith intersest @ 7% p.a.w.e.f.30/09/2010(i.e.from the date when Op stopped paying interest)to complainant till its realization. Complainant is 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.