Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/61

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Dehar Cooperative Agriculture Service Society - Opp.Party(s)

In person

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  61 of 15.09.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      12.12.2017

 

Kuldeep Singh, aged about 32 years, son of Sh. Charan Singh, resident of Village Dehar Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.   

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

  The Dehar Cooperative Agriculture Society Services Limited, Dehar Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,  District Rupnagar, through its Secretary                                                                                        ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Kuldeep Singh, complainant in person  

O.P. ex-parte

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Kuldeep Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To correct the interest rate

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

iii)     To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

 

 

2.          In brief the case of the complainant is that he has taken the credit passbook from the O.P., for purchase of urea and eatable etc. As per the rules, the O.P. was to charge interest @ 7% per annum on the MRP mentioned on the purchased items. He was to repay the amount of the purchased items along with interest after every six months to the O.P.  However, O.P. charged interest more than 7%, the agreed rate of interest. He requested the O.P. to adjust the amount taken in excess, in future. But the O.P. did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, this complaint.

3.          On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.11.2017.

4.          On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of Statement of Sehkari Kissan Credit Card and Passbook Ex.C2 & EX.C3 and closed the evidence.

5.               We have heard the complainant  and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.           The complainant has averred that he had repaid the loan amount along with interest @ 7% per annum within six months, to the O.P. However, the O.P. charged interest more than agreed rate of interest i.e. 7% per annum. The said averment of the complainant has gone unrebutted as the O.P. instead of contesting the case has preferred not to appear before this Forum, as such, we have no reason to disbelieve the said averment of the complainant.  

      From the copy of passbook, Ex.C2, it is evident that the O.P. issued the same in the name of complainant bearing account No.178. From the entries made in the passbook pertaining to the period from 27.6.2014 to 03.11.2017 (Ex.C-3) it is evident that the loan amount taken by the complainant from time to time was repaid by him and the O.P. had charged interest @ 7% per annum on the loan amount. However, for the loan amount which the complainant had taken on 2.11.2016 and repaid on 07.06.2017, the O.P. had charged Rs.373/- as interest, for the period of 7 months and 6 days, instead of Rs.230.34/- calculated @ 7% per annum. In this way, the O.P. had charged Rs.143/- in excess as interest from the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The said act of the O.P. has caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and dragged him into uncalled for litigation. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of the view that end of justice would be met if a lum sum amount of Rs.3000/- be paid to the complainant by the O.P. 

7.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. to pay a lum sum amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.     

8.         The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated .12.12.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER