Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/66

Iqbal Singh Chana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Gats Urban Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                 66 of 2020

Date of Institution:    05.03.2020

Date of Decision :     20.09.2022

 

Iqbal Singh Channa aged about 40 years son of Piara Singh, resident of Patti Sandhu, Village Panj Grain Kalan, District  Faridkot.

......Complainant

Versus

1. The Gats Urban Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, having its Branch Office situated at backside of Bhagat Singh Park, First Floor of Central Bank of India, Branch Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot  through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s The Gats Urban Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, having its registered office at SCO 1-3 B, Swami Vivekananda Vridhashram Market, B Block, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, through its Head Branch Manager /Authorized Signatory.          

                                                         ......OPs

cc no. 66 of 2020

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  OPs Exparte.

 (ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to refund Rs.55,163/- alongwith interest as agreed by OPs and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in December, 2018, agent of OPs visited at the shop of complainant and requested to get a fixed deposit with them and also assured of interest at the rate of 8.50% for the period of six

cc no. 66 of 2020

months. Believing his representation, complainant deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-with them on 17.12.20188 against Deposit Confirmation Receipt for the period from 17.12.2018 to 22.06.2019 and wife of complainant was made nominee for said fixed deposit. Ops assured to provide maturity value of Rs.52,125/-at the date of maturity against principal amount. On 22.06.2019 i.e., on the date of maturity, OPs credited Rs.52,125/- in his account and complainant duly received message regarding this on his mobile phone and as per account, amount of Rs.55,163/-is still lying in his account, but when he visited the office of OPs for withdrawing his amount, OP-1 lingered on the matter and then, OPs finally refused to make payment,  which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. All this act of Ops has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him, for which he has prayed for compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated

cc no. 66 of 2020

11.03.2020,  complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 4                                         On receipt of the notice, OPs  appeared in this Commission through counsel and filed written version taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present for as complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs. It is averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and only Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Further averred that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present complaint that cannot be decided in the summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act and moreover, complainant is barred by his own act and conduct to file the present compliant. It is asserted that no cause of action arises against answering OPs and complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted regarding issuance of FDRs to complainant and their maturity value.

cc no. 66 of 2020

As per OPs, claim regarding release of maturity value of FRDs can be filed only before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana. All the  other allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                              Proper opportunities were given to parties to lead evidence. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-4 and then , closed the same on behalf of complainant.

6                                               Despite availing sufficient opportunities, OPs did not appear in this Commission. OPs neither appeared in person nor through counsel and even did not bother to conclude their part of evidence and therefore, vide order dated  09.11.2021, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

7                                                         We have heard the exparte arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and have very

cc no. 66 of 2020

carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on record file by complainant party and reply filed by Opposite parties.

8                                              From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that on assurance of OPs that they would provide interest at the rate of 8.5 % for the period of six months, complainant deposited amount of Rs.50,000/-with them against proper receipts through FDR and FDR dated 17.12.2018 Ex C-2 was issued to him. Complainant deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- with OPs vide account no. FD/39/1 on 17.12.2018 that matured on 22.06.2019. On the date of maturity, i.e on 22.06.2019,  OPs credited Rs.52,125/-into the account of complainant as maturity value of said FDR and as per messaged Ex C-3 balance of his bank account was Rs.55,163/- and thereafter, complainant approached them several times to withdraw his amount in respect of FDR in question, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext

 

cc no. 66 of 2020

or the other and finally refused to make payment,  which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.

9                                            As per Deposit Receipt Ex C-2 issued by OPs to complainant on 17.12.2018, OPs are bound to pay the maturity value of Rs.52,125/- against said FDR alongwith remaining amount lying available in his account to complainant. It is clearly mentioned over FDRs that on the date of maturity, complainant would be entitled to get 8.5 % interest on principal amount.  Now, OPs are intentionally avoiding the complainant to get escape from their liability. Ops assured to provide maturity value on the date of maturity, but they did not keep their promise. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests and several visits paid by him, OPs did not release the maturity value and flatly refused to pay the same for which he is fully entitled. It amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal from OPs side, rather they have made a false ground for

 

cc no. 66 of 2020

further delaying the payment of maturity value, which is not appropriate.

10                                     We have thoroughly gone through the file and have carefully perused the documents produced on record by parties. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OPs did not release the amount in question, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. From the written version filed by OPs to this Commission, it is observed that they have themselves admitted receipt of amount of Rs. 50,000/- from complainant on 17.12.2018 and have also admitted regarding issuance of FDR against this amount at the rate of 8.5 % from the date of issuance till the date of maturity i.e 17.12.2019, but have not given any plausible reason for not making payment against maturity value of these FDRs. No justification is put forth by OPs to clear the point regarding non payment of maturity value of fixed deposit to complainant.

 

cc no. 66 of 2020

11                                   It is admitted by Opposite Parties that complainant deposited the amount in question with them and there is no denial to the fact that they did not release this amount to complainant for which he is fully entitled. Documents Ex C-2  itself speaks out that OPs received Rs.50,000/- from complainant on 17.12.2018 and in lieu of that received amount, OPs assured to return Rs.52,125/-by maturity date, but on date fixed they failed to keep their words. Ex C-3 message regarding credit of maturity value into the account of complainant on 22.06.2019 reflects that OPs deposited maturity value against FDR in question into the account of complainant, but action on the part of OPs in not allowing complainant to get withdrawal of same, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Meaning thereby, OPs have deprived complainant of using his own amount, which is quite cryptic and enigmatic. Through his affidavit Ex C-1 he has reiterated his grievance. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and all documents placed on record by complainant part are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

cc no. 66 of 2020

12               From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by complainant, it is observed that act of OPs in not releasing the maturity amount involved in FDR in question, is inappropriate and cryptic. It amounts to deficiency in service on their part. OPs have no right to detain the amount of complainant without any plausible reason. By not releasing the said amount, they have deprived him of using this amount, which is a trade mal practice and enigmatic. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to OPs to release the maturity value of Rs.52,125/-against FDR in question alongwith interest at the rate of 3% per anum from the date of maturity till final realization and also allow the complainant to withdraw the amount lying deposited in his account prior to maturity of said FDR. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses to complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to

cc no. 66 of 2020

initiate proceedings as per Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 20.09.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member