Haryana

Ambala

CC/64/2012

JOGINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURINDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHUTOSH AGGARWAL

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 64 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 22.02.2012

                                                           Date of decision           : 13.01.2017

 

1.       Joginder singh Walia S/o Sh. Amarjit singh aged 46 years.

2.       Suman Walia W/o Sh. Joginder Singh Walia, age 50 years R/o H.No. 3868,      Kachcha Bazar, Ambala Cantt.  

……. Complainant.

1.       Surinder Kumar Khora, # 2796, Hashmi Mohalla, Hari Palace, Opp. Balmiki   Mandir, Ambala City.

2.       Asha Rani W/o Sh. Surinder Kumar khora, # 2796, Hashmi Mohalla, Hari                 Palace, Opp. Balmiki Mandir, Ambala City.

3.       Dr. Ambedkar Co-op. Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (Regd.),     C/o 2270/2, Nahan House, Hari Palace Road, Ambala City through President          Surinder Kumar Khora.

 ….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

Present:       Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Ops already exparte v.o.d. 01.05.2015.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that OP NO. 1 as president and the OP NO. 2 as member of society –Dr. Ambedkar Co-OP and Non Agriculture thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (Regd.) C/o 2270/2, Nahan House, Hari Palace Road, Ambala city (OP NO. 3), approached and persuaded the complainants to deposit amount in the said society as fixed deposits and the complainants were assured to have interest at the rate of Rs. 14.4%p.a. and on persuasion and assurance by the respondents, the complainant deposited                         Rs. 2,88,000/- as fixed deposit in the society of the Ops. Further submitted that at the time of maturity of the said fixed deposits, the complainant visited the Ops but the Ops started avoiding the complainant on one pretest or the other and on 13.01.2009, the complainant was written a letter by way of speed post to the Ops for making the payment of the matured fixed deposits but the Ops neither responded the said letter nor made the payment to the complainant. Further submitted that in the month of June 2010 to discharge legal liability partly, the Ops unwillingly issued singed Account Payee Post dated Cheque No. 432301, Rs. 45000/- dated 30.07.2010, Account NO. 1551, Punjab & Sind Bank, Dev Samaj College Road, Ambala City to the complainant No. 1 against the original FDR No. 2983 and took away the said original FDR No. 2983 from complainants and it was also assured that the rest payment alongwith interest would be paid by the Ops to the complainant within couple of days and the complainants had no other option but to except the unfaithful version of the Ops but subsequently, the complainant no. 1 received letter dated 28.07.2010 written and signed by the Op no. 1 Annexure C-10 wherein it was requested to the complainant no. 1 not to present the said cheque in the bank and also sought one month time more. The complainant accepted the request of the Op No. 1 once again. Further submitted that vide letter dated 28.07.2010, the complainant NO. 1 deposited the said cheque in his account/bank –Bank of India after one month but it got dishonoured and returned unpaid with the remarks “Fund Insufficient” by the Bank of the Op vide memo dated 26.08.2010. Further submitted that the same process repeated again by the Ops with the complainant and again unwillingly issued signed account payee cheque No. 432302 Rs. 45,000/-, Account No. 1551, dated 31.12.2010, Punjab and Sind Bank, Dev Samaj College Road, Ambala City to discharge their legal liability partly to the complainant no. 1 but the said cheque again returned unpaid with the remarks “Fund Insufficient” by the Bank. So, there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on account of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement, raising several objections and denying the allegations of the complainant, stating that the complainant is barred by limitation, it is not a consumer dispute and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Further submitted that the Ops the FDR No. 2983 of the year 2003 was duly encashed after its maturity date and the complainants had received its maturity amount form the Ops in full and final settlement of its claim and a cheque No. 432301 dated 30.07.2010 for sum of                Rs. 45,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Dev Samaj College road, Ambala City (A/C No. 1551)  issued to the complainant No. 1 against FDR No. 3666 and the said payment was made and accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of the maturity value of the said FDR NO. 3666 but the same was dishounoured and was returned back to the complainant. Further submitted that again a cheque No. 432302 dated 31.12.2010 for sum of Rs. 45,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Dev Samaj College Road, Ambala again in full and final settlement of the maturity value of the FDR No. 3667 but unfortunately, the same was returned to the complainant with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Further submitted that the Ops have already paid the maturity value of the FDR No. 3667 and handed over the cheque No. 432302 dated 31.12.2010 to the complainant in full and final settlement of the maturity claim of the said FDR No. 3667. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-26 and close his evidence. Ops proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 01.05.2015

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had deposited amounting to Rs. 2,88,000/- by way of FRD account but after maturity of FRD account, the Ops refused to pay the above said amount with interest at the rate of 14.4%p.a.. The complainant has also placed on file fixed deposit receipts Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 which they have received from Ops. Further averred that the Ops issued a cheque of Rs. 45000/- bearing No. 432302 dated 31.12.2010 to the complainant which was returned by the drawee bank with memo dated 22.02.2012 for reason of “insufficient funds” in the account of Ops i.e. Punjab & Sind Bank, Dev Samaj college Road, Ambala City along with the copy of memo issued by the bank as Annexure-14 on the file and after bouncing of the above said cheque, the complainant has filed criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act as per law against the Ops in the learned Court of Sh. Harish Goyal, JMIC, Ambala as Annexure -27. Perusal of the filed clearly shows that the Ops are habitual defaulters and the Hon’ble Forum has held deficiency of service against the Ops in the complaint No. 14 of 15-01-2010, Titled “Inderjit Singh Vs. Sunrinder Kumar Khora and others decided on 07.02.2011 as Annexure C-28. The version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit alonwith fixed deposit receipts Annexure C-1 to C-7 which is clearly shows that the amount has been deposited for 12 months at the rate of interest 15% and 14.4% per annum respectively (rate of interest mentioned in FDR No. 2106, 2107 and 2108 is at the rate of 15% and rate of interest mentioned in FDR No. 2522, 2982, 3667 and 3666 is at the rate of 14.4% per annum. So, after maturity of the FDR, Ops failed to given the maturity amount with interest, instead of the complainant are facing great mental tension, agony, harassment. Further averred that the Ops not bothered with the present case after filing of reply and they were proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 01.05.2015. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                In view of above discussion, we have opinion that non-payment of the amount of the FDRs to the complainants by the Ops is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint is allowed with costs and Ops are jointly and severally directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

                                      (i)      To pay a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- to the complainant                                                       alongwith simple interest as mentioned in FDRs @                                             15% per annum in FDA No. 2106, 2107 and 2108                                                       and 14.4% per annum in FDA NO. 2522, 2982,                                                 3667 and 3666 the date of deposit till the date of                                                      maturity and thereafter on the matured amount to                                                          pay simple interest @  9% per annum to till its                                                           realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :13.01.2017                                           Sd/

                                                                              (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                     Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member