Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/54

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singh Land Real Estate - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kesar Singh Adv.

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  54 of 07.09.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :     17.07.2018

 

Rajinder Singh, aged about 62 years son of Sh. Giani Singh, resident of House No.3685, Ward No.9, Khushal Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. Singh Land Real Estate & Infratek Ltd. 210 2^nd Floor, Syall Complex, Above HDFC Bank, Ludhiana 141003 through its MD Sawinder Singh 

2. Sh. Kewal, Kothi No.286, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupangar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Kesar Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant 

O.P. No.1 exparte 

Sh. APS Bawa, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.2,75,000/- of the amount of policies, Rs.33,000/- interest and Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant on account of deficiency of services, unfair trade practice, cheating, maltreatment, harassment, humiliation, monetary loss and injury in the reputation to the complainant.

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on the assurance of the O.Ps., complainant get the FDR bearing No.31602736 dated 31.12.2015 being S. No.001402 on the payment of Rs.75,000/-  and FDR No.31602778 dated 29.2.2016 being S. No.RPR/001420 on the payment of Rs.2,75,000/-. The O.Ps. received the above said payments at the office of SCF No.20 Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar and the FDRs were issued at above said office. The maturity date of the said FDRs were 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017 and maturity amounts were Rs.84,000/- & Rs.2,24,000/-. On the dates of maturity, complainant deposited the original FDRs with the O.P. No.2 in its office at Rupnagar, but it refused to give any receipt with regard to deposit of the same. The O.P. No.2 told him that the payment will be released after 10 days. So the complainant was waiting for ten days. But after passing 10 days the payment was not made by the O.Ps. The complainant requested the O.Ps. several times but the payment was not given. It is further stated that the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are indulging in unfair trade practice. The FIR was registered against the O.P. No.1 at PS Sadar, Rupnagar, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC for the misappropriation of the payments of the incorrect peoples. The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 harassed, humiliate, cheated and misbehaved with the complainant and indulge in the unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint. 

3.    On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2017.

 4.   On notice, O.P. No.2 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties; that the complainant has no come to the Forum with clean hands and have concealed the material facts from this Ld. Forum. On merits, it is stated that the answering O.P. has no concern with the O.P. No.1 in any manner. The answering O.P. was earlier computer operator with the Singh Land Investment Ltd. It is further stated that the answering O.P. resigned from the Singh Land Investment Limited Company on 31.10.2017 and since then he has no concern whatsoever in that very company. The answering O.P. has never worked with OP No.1. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

5.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The O.P. No.2 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/D and closed the evidence.    

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7. Complainant counsel Sh. Kesar Singh argued that with the allurement of O.Ps, complainant invested the money in the shape of FDRs No.31602736 & 31602778 on payment Rs.75,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/-. On deposit of the said amounts the complainant received FDRs with maturity dated 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017,r respectively in which the maturity amounts were mentioned Rs.84,000/- & RS.2,24,000/-. On attaining date of maturity, complainant presented the FDRs with O.P. No.2 in its office at Rupnagar, and on deposit complainant was assured that he will received the maturity amount after about 10 days. But yet not received till today. Against OP No.1, one FIR was also registered and prayed that OP No.1 did not appear despite notice, whereas OP No.2 though appeared not denied the deposit, issuance of FDRs and its presentation for encashment. Lastly prayed that deficiency on the part of the O.ps. stand proves, the complaint be allowed with cost with the directions to pay the maturity value as well as interest/cost.

8.    Sh. A.P.S. Bawa, counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that Mr. Kewal Kumar was appointed vide Ex.OP2/B dated 3.10.2013 and he submitted his resignation dated 31.10.2017. So after 31.10.2017 Mr. Kewal Kumar has no concern with the O.P. No.1 or within branch office of OP No.2. The complaint is not filed by name against Sh. Kewal Kumar, rather the complaint is against Singh Land Real Estate & Infratek Ltd. through its branch incharge. So much prior to filing this complaint Kewal Kumar resigned from the duty. Lastly prayed that complainant has no concern with Kewal Kumar, qua him the complaint should be dismissed.

9.    Before deciding the controversy, the forum is to appreciate whether it is a consumer dispute and further whether the complaint is maintainable. Complainant has come forward relying upon two documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C4 and their maturity dates are 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017. To rebut this documents O.Ps. did not produce any proof. Maturity dates are 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017 but the present complaint was filed on 24.8.2017, so the complaint is within limitation and it is a consumer dispute, and the complaint is maintainable.

10.  Coming to the real controversy, whether complainant is entitled to maturity amounts w.e.f. 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017 to the tune of Rs.75,000/- & Rs.2,24,000/- with interest/cost. It is pertinent to mention that OP No.1 did not appear despite notice and the registered cover was returned with the report "refusal", whereas the OP No.2 served but appear Mr. Kewal Kumar, who by filing the written reply has taken the separate plea that he was employed with Singh Land Real Estate & Infratek Limited and left the job vide resignation dated 31.10.2017. So the evidence led by the complainant is almost unrebutted.

11.  Appreciating the photocopy of FDRs bearing No.31602736 & 31602778 and their maturity dates 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017. After the maturity date the original FDRs were presented with OP No.2, who assured to return the maturity amount. O.P. did not place on file any document. Whereas the complainant placed on file photocopy of FIR No.63 dated 11.6.2016, registered at PS Sadar, Rupnagar, against O.Ps. OP No.2 placed on file some documents qua resignation/appointment etc. Complainant placed on file one FDRs and their maturity date are 31.12.2016 & 24.2.2017, they were presented for encashment. To rebut this version no evidence from the side of O.P. has come on file. When complainant deposited the money then he certainly entitled of its fruit. So complainant remains successful in proving deficiency on the part of O.Ps.

12.  In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.84,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2017 & also to pay Rs.2,24,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.2017 till realization with cost of Rs.5000/-.  

13.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .17.07.2018                          PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER