DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 206                                                                                        

                                                                    Instituted on:  12.05.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    14.08.2017

Gurpreet Kaur aged about 39 years wife of Paramjit Singh resident of village Badrukhan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

1.       SCF Finance Ltd.  SCO No.36, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market, Uppli Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.       SCF Finance Ltd. (Head Office) 209 Syall Complex Above HDFC Bank, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

        ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Naresh Juneja 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.             Gurpreet Kaur complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she deposited an amount of Rs.11,500/- with OPs on 02.12.2010 in the shape of FDR  for a fixed period of 72 months which was to be matured on 01.12.2016. After maturity period the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.23345/-. On 09.12.2016 the complainant deposited original FDR with OPs and requested to release the maturity amount but OPs failed to pay the maturity amount till today. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make/release  the payment of Rs.23345/- along with interest @18% per annum till payment,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)  OPs be directed to pay Rs.3330/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant has opened FDR of Rs.11,000/-  for a fixed period of 72 months with OPs.  It is denied that complainant has invested  Rs.11,000/-  in the shape of FDR with OPs. The OPs have not issued any FDR to the complainant. 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-3 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 the complainant opened FDR of Rs.11,500/- with OPs on 02.12.2010 which was to be matured on 02.12.2016 which is evident from the copy of FDR Ex.C-2. On the other hand, OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint. It has been specifically denied by the OPs that the complainant did not open the FDR of Rs.11500/- with them. Further, the OPs have stated that they had not issued any FDR to the complainant.

5.             The complainant has also produced on record receipt/slip regarding deposit of original FDR with OPs on 09.12.2016 which is Ex.C-3 on record which shows that the complainant has deposited the FDR for release of the payment after maturity period with the OPs.  The said receipt/ slip is also duly signed by the OPs. But, we failed to understand that when the copy of receipt / slip for submission of original FDR for release of the payment Ex.C-3 and copy of FDR  Ex.C-2  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 deposit 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 payment of Rs.23345/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1100/- 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

                August14, 2017

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )  ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                   

         Member                    Member                            President

BBS/-