Punjab

Sangrur

CC/164/2017

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singhland Investments Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Dhindsa

19 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 164

Instituted on:    19.04.2017

                                                                        Decided on:      19.07.2017

 

 

Hardeep Singh aged about 46 years son of Mukand Singh, resident of Village Balad Khurd, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     Singhland Investments Limited, 208, 2^nd Floor, Syall Complex, Above HDFC Bank, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2.     Sawinder Singh Khokhar son of Dalip Singh, Chairman Singhland Investments Limited, 208, 2^nd Floor, Syall Complex, Above HDFC Bank, Ludhiana.

3.     Singhland Investments Limited near Magnum Palace, Uppli Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri S.S.Dhindsa, Advocate                          

 

FOR 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.             Shri Hardeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the OPs on the advice of Branch Manager of Bhawanigarh branch (which now has emerged with the OP number 3)  in single time installment and the complainant was entitled to get 12% interest upon the deposited amount, as such the Ops issued FDR number BHW/002204, BHW/002205, BHW/02286, BHW/002287, BHW/02288 and BHW/02289 of Rs.50,000/- each for one year and after one year the Ops were liable to return the amount in question i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest i.e. the total amount Rs.3,36,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that on maturity the complainant approached the Ops for payment of the maturity amount, but the same was not paid despite requests and depositing the of the FDRs din question with the Ops.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to make/ release the payment of Rs.3,36,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of complaint, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant has not invested any amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged (whereas the case of the complainant is of Rs.3,00,000/- and not of Rs.2,00,000/-).  When the complainant has not deposited any amount, then the question of refund of any amount to the complainant does not arise at all.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt and Ex.C-3 copy of receipt and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             From the perusal of the documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  in single time installment for the period of one year and the same were duly deposited with the Ops for payment on 23.7.2016 and 03.09.2016, as is evident from the copies of the deposit slips Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and that on maturity the amount was payable to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum, but the same was not paid despite approaching the complainant so many times.    As such, we feel that it is the duty of the OPs to release the agreed/maturity amount, which the Ops have failed to release despite the fact the Ops have got deposited the FDRs in question for payment. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the Ops did not release the due amount to the complainant, as such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

5.             For the reasons recorded above, we feel that the OPs have miserably failed to repay the invested/ deposited amount to the complainant and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3500/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 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.

Pronounced.

 

                July 19, 2017.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                 Member