Punjab

Sangrur

CC/137/2017

Reena Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singhland Investments Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vikram Manchanda

20 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 137                                                                                        

                                                                    Instituted on:  05.04.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    20.06.2017

 

Reena Rani d/o Sh. Parkash Chand, r/o H.No.28, Aggarwal Street No.1, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.       Singhland Investments Ltd. Flat No.36  Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market, UIppli road, Near Mittal Eye Care Sangrur  through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

 

2.       Singhland Investments Ltd. 208-209-2010 2nd Floor, Syall Complex Above HDFC Bank Limited, Gill Road, Miller Ganj , Ludhiana through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

3.       Savinder Singh Khokhar # 208-209-2010,  2nd Floor, Syall Complex Above HDFC Bank Limited, Gill Road, Miller Ganj , Ludhiana through its Chairman/ M.D./ Authorized Signatory.

 

        ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Vikram ManchandaAdvocate                          

 

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.             Reena Rani 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.18000/- with OP no.1 which was to be matured on 09.01.2017 and the maturity amount was Rs.36000/-. On 09.01.2017 the complainant requested to release the amount and submitted  the original policy with OP no.1 and OPs issued acknowledgement dated 9.1.2017 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 maturity amount of   Rs.36000/-  alon  g with interest @12% per annum from 09.01.2017 till realization of entire decretal amount,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)  OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of unfair trade practice  and to pay Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.18000/- with the OPs. It has been alleged that when no investment was made with the OP by the complainant then question of issuing alleged policy does not arise. The OPs have not issued any acknowledgement 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-7 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.18,000/- with OPs  which was to be matured on 09.01.2017 which is evident from the copy of fixed deposit receipt 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 invest an amount of Rs.18000/- in the shape of FDR 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 09.01.2017 which is Ex.C-3 on record which shows that the complainant has deposited the FDR 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 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 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.36000/- 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.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.

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

                June 20, 2017

 

 

 

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

Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-