DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 331                                                                                      

                                                                    Instituted on:  13.07.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    26.10.2017

Khushpreet Kaur wife of Mandeep Dass, resident of Village Sullar Gharat, Tehsil Dirba, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

1.       Singhland Investments Pvt. Limited, 208, 2nd Floor, Syall Complex Above HDFC Bank Limited, Ludhiana through its Managing Directors Shavinder Singh Khokhar.

2.       Singhland  Investments Limited, 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.             Khushpreet Kaur complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she  invested an amount of Rs.50,000/-  in the shape of FDR with OPs on 08.04.2011 @12.57% interest and the maturity date of the FDR was 08.02.2017. After maturity period the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.100000/- . On the due date of the FDR, the complainant submitted FDR with the OP no.2 and requested to release the maturity amount  but OPs failed to release the same till today. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.100000/- along with interest @12.57% per annum from the date of maturity 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.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.50000/- in the shape of FDR with the OPs.  It is stated that when the complainant has not deposited any amount with the OPs in the shape of FDR then the question of paying the maturity amount of Rs.100000/-  to the complainant does not arise . 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 invested an amount of Rs.50000/-  in the shape of FDR  with OPs on 08.04.2011 which was to be matured on 08.02.2017 and the maturity amount is Rs.1,00,000/- which is evident from the fixed deposit receipt Ex.C-3. 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 deposit an amount of Rs.100000/- in the shape of FDR with them. Further the OPs have stated that they did not launch any alleged scheme and the OPs  had not issued any FDR to the complainant.

5.             The complainant has also produced on record  receipt/slip regarding submission of FDR Ex.C-2 which shows that the complainant has deposited the required documents for release of the payment after maturity period with the OPs.  The said receipt/ slip is also duly signed and stamped 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 copy of fixed deposit receipt  Ex.C-3  issued by the OPs are  on record then on which 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 his case. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs.100000/- 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

                October 26, 2017

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

BBS/-