Punjab

Sangrur

CC/375/2016

Mahinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMD INFRA VENTURE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                       Complaint No. 375

Instituted on:  02.05.2016

                                                                        Decided on:    04.11.2016

 

 

Mahinder Kaur W/o Roop Singh (dead) through her nominee/son Jagtar Singh son of Roop Singh, resident of # 140, Dhuri Road, Mander Patti, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     SMD INFRA VENTURES PVT. LTD. Dhuri, Above Bank of Baroda, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     SMD INFRA VENTURES PVT. LTD. 228, Balaji Enclave, Lohgarh Road, Zirakpur 140603 (PB) through its MD.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Jagtar Singh being nominee of Mahinder Kaur (since deceased), complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, Shri Mahinder Kaur availed the services of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in one time investment plan at Dhuri vide registration number SMD00799 on 2.11.2012 and on maturity the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.2,75,380/- on 1.11.2015 or to provide a plot of 2000 sq. feet.  Further case of the complainant is that since the period of three years has already expired on 1.11.2015 and the complainant deposited the certificate with the Op number 1 for refund of the maturity amount, but the OPs paid only an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only on 20.1.2016 and further assured that the remaining amount shall be paid to the complainant very soon. Further case of the complainant is that the OPs did not pay the balance amount despite his approaching the Ops so many times.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.2,75,380/- after deduction of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as per clause of the general terms and conditions as in case of any dispute then the case should be referred for arbitration to any retired judicial officer, that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it is denied that the OPs agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,75,380/- on maturity. However, it is stated that the complainant purchased the plot of 2000 sq. ft for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the projected value of the said plot was Rs.2,75,380/-. It is stated further that the complainant was requested to get the succession certificate in case he wants payment and, as such, the complainant requested the OP that he is in dire need of money an as such an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the complainant.  It is further stated that the amount shown in the voucher is only projected value of the plot.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of death certificate and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit,  Ex.OP-2 copy of agreement, Ex.OP-3 copy of voter card, Ex.OP-4 copy of ration card and Ex.OP-5 copy of registration certificate and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             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 had invested an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Ops and in turn the Ops issued the registration letter Ex.C-2, whereby it has been stated that the projected amount on maturity will be Rs.2,75,380/-, as is evident from the document i.e. copy of policy, which is on record as Ex.C-2. The complainant has further stated that though he submitted all the required documents  with the OPs, but the OPs have failed to repay the full amount of Rs.2,75,380/- to the complainant, however the Ops paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of the due amount i.e. on 20.1.2016. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the Ops had sold the plot to the complainant of 2000 sq. ft and had not promised to pay the amount of Rs.2,75,380/-.  However, the projected amount payable to the complainant was Rs.2,75,380/- as mentioned in the document Ex.C-2.  The fact remains that the Ops have neither offered any plot of 2000 sq. feet nor returned the amount of Rs.2,75,380/- in full nor gave any such a plot. Further, no document has been produced by the OPs to show that they have  purchased any land for allotment to the complainant. In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops are duty bound to return him the promised amount on maturity. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that an agreement was executed between the parties and there was a specific clause in the agreement that if there is any dispute pertaining to the said agreement, then the same  will be referred to the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. But, we may mention that on 22.7.2016, the application for referring the matter to the sole arbitration was dismissed on the ground that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and the same view was also taken in 2013(2) CLT 437 (Punjab).  But, the Ops did not opt to prefer an appeal against the order dated 22.7.2016. As such, we are of the considered opinion that this point of referring the matter to the arbitrator has also been decided by this Forum as mentioned above.  

 

6.             Further, we feel that there is no need of any succession certificate, as the document Ex.C-2 clearly shows that nominee under the policy was the complainant i.e.Shri Jagtar Singh, as such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the payment is made by the Op to the complainant.

 

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.1,25,380/- (Rs.2,75,380/- minus Rs.1,50,000/- already paid to the complainant on 20.1.2016)  to the complainant Shri Jagtar Singh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 01.11.2015 till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of compensation and further Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

Pronounced.

 

                November 4, 2016.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member