Punjab

Sangrur

CC/94/2017

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singhland Investments Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sanjeev Goyal

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 94                                                                                         

                                                                   Instituted on:  09.03.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    01.06.2017

 

Satish Kumar aged about 70 years son of Raja Ram resident of Ward No.13, H.No.2226, Chehlan Patti, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.                                                       …. Complainant.          

                                         

Versus

 

1.       Singhland Investments Ltd. 208 2nd Floor, Syall Complex Above HDFC Bank Limited, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

 

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 Sanjeev Goyal 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.             Satish Kumar complainant 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.50,000/- with OPs in the shape of FDR   at the rate of @10.80% per annum which was to be matured on 06.12.2016. On 22.12.2016 the complainant deposited copy of FDR  and requested to release the amount of FDR alongwith interest but OPs failed to pay the 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 amount of   FDR i.e. Rs.50000/-  along with interest @10.80% per annum from the date of deposit 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, it is denied that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR with the OPs. When no investment was made with the OP by the complainant then question of issuing alleged certificate does not arise. The OPs have not issued any FDR 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-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.50,000/- in the shape of FDR with OPs  which was to be matured on 06.12.2016 which is evident from the copy of FDR 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 invest an amount of Rs.50000/- 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 22.12.2016 which is Ex.C-2 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-2 and copy of FDR  Ex.C-3  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.50000/- to the complainant along with interest @10.80% 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 1, 2017

 

 

 

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

  Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-