DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 246                                                                                        

                                                                     Instituted on:  01.06.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    03.10.2017

Hardeep Kaur minor daughter of Sh. Gurtej Singh, resident of village Rotolan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, minor under the guardianship of her father Gurtej Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Ratolan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

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 Ajay Pal Singh 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.             Hardeep Kaur complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that under the allurement she invested  an amount of Rs.3,70,000/-  with the OPs on 15.12.2015 and OP no.2 issued  FDRs no.DBR001855 to  DBR001862. The date of maturity of the said FDRs was 15.12.2016. The maturity amount of the FDRs from DBR001855 to DBR001861  is Rs.56000/- of each FDR and  the maturity amount of FDR no. DBR001862 is Rs.22400/- and total maturity amount is Rs.4,14,400/-.  On the due date of FDRs the complainant submitted copies of FDRs with the OP no.2 for releasing the amount of FDRs and the OP no.2 assured the complainant that the amount shall be released within 15 days. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP no.2 number of times for release of the maturity amount but the OP no.2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  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.4,14,400/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, all the allegations leveled by the complainant are denied.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 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 invested  an amount of Rs.3,70,000/-  with the OPs on 15.12.2015 and OP no.2 issued  FDRs no.DBR001855 to  DBR001862 which are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-10 on record . From the perusal of the said  FDRs, we also find that the date of maturity of the said FDRs was 15.12.2016 and the maturity amount of the FDRs from DBR001855 to DBR001861  is Rs.56000/- of each FDR and  the maturity amount of FDR no. DBR001862 is Rs.22400/- and total maturity amount is Rs.4,14,400/-. 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.

5.             The complainant has also produced slip/ receipt regarding submission of copies of FDRs with the OPs after due date for release of maturity amount which is Ex.C-2 on record which show that the complainant has deposited the required documents for release of the payment.  The said receipt/ slip is also duly signed by the OPs. But, we failed to understand that when the  copy of    slip/ receipt 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.4,14,400/- to the complainant along with 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.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and to pay 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

                October 3, 2017

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

  Member                    Member                            President

BBS/-