Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1/2017

Kaushalya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singhland Investments Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajesh Kumar Garg

20 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 01                                                                                          

                                                                   Instituted on:  02.01.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    20.04.2017

 

Kaushalya Devi aged 70 years w/o Sh. Lachhman Dass resident of H.No.BX/350, Street No.21, Prem Basti, Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

1.       Singhland Investments Ltd. Zonal Office, 36, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market, Uppli Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

2.       Singhland Investments Ltd. 208, 2nd Floor, Sayali complex above HDFC Bank, Ludhiana 141003 through its M.D.

 

3.       Gagandeep Goyal son of Harkesh Kumar resident of Hargobindpura Basti Sangrur .

        ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri R.K.Garg 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.             Kaushalya Devi complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she opened  three FDRs  of Rs.50,000/-  each with OPs  for a fixed period 12 months from the date of commencement as 25.07.2015 and date of expiry as 25.07.2016. After maturity period the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,000/-. On 25.07.2016 the complainant submitted original three FDRs with OPs and requested to release the maturity amount and OPs issued acknowledgement on 16.08.2016 but  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.169050/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of commencement till payment,

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.33000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant has opened three FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each  for a fixed period of 12 months with date of commencement i.e. 25.07.2015 and date of expiry as 25.07.2016.  It is denied that complainant has invested her saving of Rs.1,50,000/-  in the fixed terms deposit of 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-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 to3/1 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 three FDRs of Rs.50,000/-  each with OPs  which were to be matured on 25.07.2016 which is evident from the copies of FDRs Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. 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 FDRs of Rs.50000/- each   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 FDRs with OPs on 16.11.2016 which is  Ex.C-2 on record which shows that the complainant has deposited the FDRs  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 required documents for release of the payment Ex.C-2 and copies of copies of FDRs  Ex.C-3,Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5  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 payment of Rs.168,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the FDRs 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

                April 20, 2017

 

 

 

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

Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-