DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 196
Instituted on: 09.05.2017
Decided on: 01.09.2017
Rinky Aggarwal aged 18 years daughter of Shashi Kumar R/o Patti Sunami, Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. S.M.D. Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Near Liberty Show Room, Backside Post office, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. S.M.D. Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. through its Chairman, Head Office Outside Sunami Gate, above IDBI Bank, Sangrur 148 001.
3. Sandeep Kumar Jindal son of Kulbhushan Kumar Jindal, Executive Member of SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Near Liberty Show Room, Backside Post office, Sangrur.
4. Jatinder Jain son of Kundan Lal Jain, Executive Member of SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. R/O # 12/482, Shekhupura Basti, Backside OBC Bank, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.
5. Mohd. Mughni Usmani son of Mohd. Zaheer Hassan Usmani, Executive Member of S.M.D. Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. r/o @ b-16/56, Delhi Gate, Near Old Post Office, Malerkotla.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Smt. Rinky Aggarwal, 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 for one year on 28.11.2014 and the Ops assured that an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- will be repaid thereafter on 28.11.2015 and as such the Ops also issued a bond number 445 dated 28.11.2014 in this regard. It is further averred that the Ops also opened a saving account number SMDB00424059. The grievance of the complainant is that out of the amount of Rs.1,11,000/-, the Ops paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- only despite his best efforts and the Ops did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.86,000/-, which is said to be a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. It is further stated that though the Ops told the complainant that the amount of Rs.86,000/- has been transferred in his saving account, but the OPs are not paying the same despite repeatedly visiting there. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.86,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 27.11.2015 till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops number 3 to 5 in litigation. It is admitted that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs and in turn the Ops were to pay the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- thereafter after a period of one year. It is stated further that the complainant has already withdrawn an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 12.7.2016 and an amount of Rs.86,000/- is still lying in his account. It is stated that the complainant can withdraw the amount of Rs.86,000/- any time. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of the documents and closed evidence. On merits, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-9 copies of the documents 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 on 28.11.2014 and in turn the Ops issued the registration letter/bond certificate bearing number 445/SMDP00737 and on 27.11.2015, the Ops were liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,11,000/-, as is evident from the document i.e. copy of bond certificate, which is on record as Ex.C-2. The complainant has further stated that though he was in requirement of the amount so invested with the Ops, as such has submitted the original certificate for payment, but the Ops did not return the so due amount to the complainant and only paid an amount of Rs.25000/- and still the amount of Rs.86000/- is lying with the Ops which the Ops are not paying despite his repeated visits to the Ops. The complainant has also produced on record the original withdrawal slip Ex.C-4 that he tried his best to withdraw the amount of Rs.86,000/-, but all in vain. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the complainant is at liberty to take the amount of Rs.86,000/- at any time, but the complainant is not approaching to withdraw the same. In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.86,000/- along with interest by way of demand draft to the complainant.
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.86,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 27.11.2015 till realisation by way of bank demand draft. The Ops are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
September 1, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
