DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 563
Instituted on: 16.09.2016
Decided on: 21.02.2017
Dhalminder Singh aged about 34 years son of Darbara Singh R/O Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. SMD Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Near Liberty Show Room Backside Post Office, Sangrur through its Branch Manager Nanak Singh, Kishanpura, Sangrur.
2. SMD Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office Near Liberty show room, Backside Post Office Sangrur through its M.D. Sandeep Kumar Jindal S/o Kulbhushan Kumar Jindal, Housing Board Colony, Sangrur. GM/DGM Operation.
3. SMD Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Jatinder Jain son of Kundan Lal Jain # 12/482, Sekhupura Basti, Backside OBC Bank, Sangrur.
4. SMD Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. thorugh its Director Mohd. Mughni Usmani son of Mohd. Zaheer Huassan Usmani # B-16/56, Delhi Gate, Near Old Post Office, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.
5. SMD Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Head Office 22B, Balaji Enclave, Lohgarh Road, Zirakpur through its Executive Director/Authorized Signatory.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri M.K. Satija, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES : Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Dhalminder Singh, 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, the complainant availed the services of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in one time investment plan vide registration number SMD02284 on 7.4.2015 and on maturity the Ops were to pay an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- on 6.4.2016 or to provide a plot of 1000 sq. feet for an amount of Rs.1,11,000/-. Further case of the complainant is that since the period of one year has already expired on 6.4.2016 and the complainant deposited the certificate with the Op number 1 for refund of the maturity amount, but the OPs failed to refund the same. 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.1,11,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the Ops did not file any written reply despite granting opportunities, as such the right to file the written reply was closed y order of the Forum on 30.11.2016.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of acknowledgement/receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of certificate, Ex.OP-2 copy of agency application, Ex.OP-3 copy of PAN Card, Ex.OP-4 affidavit 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.1,00,000/- 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.1,11,000/-, 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 maturity amount of Rs.1,11,000/- to the complainant. 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.1,11,000/-. However, the projected amount payable to the complainant was Rs.1,11,000/- as mentioned in the document Ex.C-2. The fact remains that the Ops have neither offered any plot of 1000 sq. feet nor returned the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- 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 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). 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. So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.1,11,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 06.04.2016 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.
7. 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.
February 21, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
