DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 697
Instituted on: 14.12.2016
Decided on: 17.04.2017
- Karanti Goyal aged about 25 years daughter of Late Sh. Ram Lal;
- Vansh Aggarwal aged about 6 years minor son of Karanti Goyal, minor under the guardianship of his mother Karanti Goyal, both residents of Near Chand Mahant Wali Gali, Ward No.6, Indra Basati, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
…. Complainants.
Versus
1. Singhland Investments Ltd. 208, 2nd Floor, Syall complex above HDFC Bank Limited, Ludhiana through its Managing Directors Shavinder Singh Khokhar, Sohrab Singh Khokhar son of Shavinder Singh Khokhar and Simrat Kaur Khokohar daughter of Shavinder Singh Khokhar.
2. Singhland Investments Ltd. Zonal Office: Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market, Shop-cum- Flat No.36 Uppli Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri G.S.Shergill Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Shri J.S.Dhiman, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Karanti Goyal and Vansh Aggarwal complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that complainant no.1 started a monthly recurring deposit of Rs.780/- per month in the name of her minor son for three years. The total investment under the said plan was Rs.27000/- and the maturity amount was Rs.32400/- The maturity date was 26.09.2016. In the month of May 2015 the complainant invested an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- with the OPs on 15.05.2015 who issued FDR No.6069 to 6085 and the maturity date was 23.05.2016. On the due date of said FDRs the complainant no.1 deposited the original FDRs with OP no.2 for releasing the amount of FDRs and on 04.10.2016 the complainant no.1 also deposited the original Recurring Deposit Certificate and OP no.2 issued the acknowledgment receipt. Thereafter the complainant no.1 approached OP no.2 number of times to release the maturity amount but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to release the amount of FDRs i.e. Rs.9,18,400/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to release the amount of Recurring Deposit i.e. Rs.32400/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,
iii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iv) OPs be directed to pay Rs.55000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections on the grounds of locus standi and cause of action have been taken up. On merits, it is denied that in September 2013 complainant started a monthly recurring deposit of Rs.780/- per month in the name of her minor son. It is denied that the maturity amount was Rs.32400/- . It is further denied that complainant invested an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- with OPs on 15.05.2015. It is also denied that any amount was deposited with the OP and issued FDR no.6069 to 6085 in favour of the complainant and date of maturity of the FDRs was 23.05.2016. It is further denied that the complainant no.1 deposited the original recurring deposit certificate with OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.
4. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the month of September 2013 the complainant no.1 started a monthly recurring deposit of Rs.780/- per month with OPs in the name of her minor son which was to be matured on 26.09.2016 which is evident from the policy document Ex.C-23. The complainant has stated that on 04.10.2016, she also deposited the original recurring deposit certificate with OP no.2 who issued acknowledgement / receipt Ex.C-20. From the perusal of record we find that the complainant no.1 has also invested an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- with OPs on 15.05.2015 in the shape of FDRs which is evident from copies of FDRs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-19 and on the maturity date the complainant no.1 has deposited the original FDRs with the OP no.2 who issued receipt which is Ex.C-21 on record. On the other hand, OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint. It has been specifically denied by the OPs that the complainant has deposited any amount with them. Further, the OPs have stated that they did not launch any alleged scheme and the OPs had not issued any policy/ receipt to the complainant.
5. The complainant has also produced slip/ receipts regarding deposit of original FDRs and original certificate which are Ex.C-20 and Ex.C-21 on record which show that the complainant has deposited the required documents for release of the payment. The said receipts/ slips are also duly signed by the OPs. But, we failed to understand that when the copies of slips/ receipts for submission of required documents for release of the payment issued by the OPs are on record then on what basis the OPs have denied all facts regarding deposit of the amount and issuance of any receipt to the complainant. We find that the record/ documents produced on the file clearly show regarding investment of said amount by the complainant with the OPs.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint whereas evidence produced by the complainant on record fully proves her case. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of maturity amount of Rs.9,18,400/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. We also direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.32400/- as recurring deposit alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
April 17, 2017
( Vinod Kumar Gulati ) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
