Punjab

Sangrur

CC/581/2016

Kuldeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singhland Investments Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Gurprit Singh Nandpuri

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 581                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  27.09.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    06.02.2017

 

Kuldeep kaur wife of Sukhjinder Singh resident of Village Taranji Khera, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

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

2.       Singhland Investments Ltd. 36 Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market Uppli Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

3.       Amar Singh son of Teja Singh resident of village Taranji Khera, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

4.       Singhland Investments Ltd. Link Road Dirba Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Manager.   

        ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri G.S.Nandpuri Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1to3 :     Shri J.S.Dhiman, Advocate         

 

FOR  OPP PARTY NO.4:             Exparte.                       

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Kuldeep 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.30,000/-  in the shape of ten installments  of Rs.3000/-  each half yearly for a period of 60 months. After maturity period the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.41512/- . On 26.05.2016 the complainant submitted policy certificate with OPs and requested to release the maturity amount but OPs failed to pay 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.41512/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till payment,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- 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.30000/- in the shape of installments.  It is stated that when the complainant has not deposited any amount with the OPs then the question of paying the amount of Rs.41512/-  to the complainant does not arise . The complainant has not deposited even a single penny with the OPs company then the question of visiting the branches of the OPs for the release of maturity amount 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-12 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 invested an amount of Rs.30,000/-  in the shape of ten installments  with OPs on 25.05.2011 which was to be matured on 25.05.2016 which is evident from the policy document Ex.C-11. 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.30000/-   with them. Further, the OPs have stated that they did not launch any alleged scheme and the OPs  had not issued any policy to the complainant.

5.             The complainant has also produced on record receipt/slip of demand of payment dated 25.05.2016 Ex.C-12 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 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-12 and copy of policy document  Ex.C-11  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 his case. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs.41512/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy 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

                February 06, 2017

 

 

 

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

Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-