Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/285

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Gats Urban Cooperative Thirft and Credit Society - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Dhillon

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                285 of 2019

Date of Institution:    02.12.2019

Date of Decision :     12.04.2022

Manpreet Singh aged about 33 years son of Nachhattar Singh, resident of Near Grain Market, Village Quila Nau, Tehsil and District  Faridkot.

......Complainant

Versus

1. The Gats Urban Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, having its Branch Office at First Floor, Above Central Bank of India, Clock Tower Street, Near Bhagat Singh Park, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot  through its Branch Manager.
2. The Gats Urban Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, having its Corporate Office at First Floor, Jandu Tower, G T Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana, through its Managing /Authorized Signatory.                                                                     ......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

cc no. 285 of 2019

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Jaswinder Singh Dhillon, 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.44,000 with interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in October, 2018, agent of OPs visited his village and requested to get a fixed deposit with them and also assured of interest at the rate of 10% per anum. Believing his representation, complainant deposited amount of Rs.40,000/-with them on 10.10.2018 against Deposit Confirmation Receipt for the period from 10.10.2018

cc no. 285 of 2019

to 10.10.2019 and wife of complainant was made nominee for said fixed deposit. Ops assured to provide maturity value of Rs.44,000/-at the date of maturity on 10.10.2019 against principal amount. On date of maturity, complainant approached OPs for withdrawing his amount and as per demand of OPs, he provided them Original Deposit Confirmation Receipt and adhaar Card and they asked him to come after a week as by this, company will refund the amount and same would be paid to him. It is further submitted that after a week, complainant again approached OP-1, but it started making excuses. Complainant again approached them several times, but they 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. 285 of 2019

09.12.2019,  complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 4                               On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in this Commission through counsel and filed written version wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false frivolous and vexatious. No cause of action arises against answering OPs and he has misused the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as he has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Commission. It is averred that complainant was their dealer and he was giving loans to persons who were defaulting and complainant assured answering OPs regarding loans provided by him, but it is pertinent to mention that complainant was not doing his business with transparency and fairly. Due to this dispute arose between them and to resolve the dispute it was settled between the parties that complainant after adjusting the complete amount of FD and loan payments, complainant issued a cheque for

cc no. 285 of 2019

Rs.1,35,000/- as a security against his liability and now, he has filed a false complaint on wrong facts to create a defence in proceedings u/s 138 N. I. Act against said cheque. It is averred that all the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present matter and therefore, complaint is not maintainable. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                              Despite availing several opportunities, OPs did not appear to conclude evidence, and therefore, vide order dated 09.11.2021, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

cc no. 285 of 2019

7                                    We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective 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 and believing the representation of agent of OPs that they would provide interest at the rate of 10% per anum, complainant deposited amount of Rs.40,000/-with them and FDR was issued for the period from 10.10.2018 to 10.10.2019. On the date of maturity, complainant furnished all the documents sought by them and OPs asked him to come after a week, but thereafter, complainant approached them several times, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to make payment,  which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. As per Deposit Receipt Ex C-2 issued by OPs to complainant on 10.10.2018, OPs are bound to pay the maturity value of Rs.44,000/-against

cc no. 285 of 2019

principal amount of Rs.40,000/-deposited by him with OPs on 10.10.2018 for the period from 10.10.2018 to 10.10.2019. It is clearly mentioned over it that on the date of maturity, complainant would be entitled to get 10 % interest on principal amount of Rs.40,000/-.  Now, OPs are intentionally avoiding the complainant to get escape from their liability. Ops assured to provide maturity value of Rs.44,000/-, but on the date of maturity, 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, plea taken by OPs is that complainant was their dealer. He gave loan to defaulters and was also not doing his business with transparency, due to which dispute arose between them and to resolve the issue between the parties, after adjusting the complete amount of FD and loan payments, complainant issued a cheque for Rs.1,35,000/- as a security against his liability, and now, he has filed a false complaint. It is observed that no evidence in the form

cc no. 285 of 2019

of any document or any witness is brought forward by OPs to prove their version. Act of OPs in not releasing the maturity value at agreed rate, is not appropriate. Second plea taken by OPs that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present matter, has no relevance in the light of order passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 823 to 826 to 2001 titled as Smt Kalawati & Others Vs M/s Untied Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd wherein Hon’ble Nation Commission has held that Section 93 of the Societies Act does not bar the jurisdiction of District Forum assuming jurisdiction in the matter.

9                               After careful perusal of 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. As per OPs, complainant has given undertaking alongwith cheque of Rs.1,35,000/-to recover the

cc no. 285 of 2019

amount, if there is any default in repayment of loan amount by persons to whom loan was granted through complainant being member of society, but OPs have not placed any documentary evidence or any witness to prove that persons mentioned in said undertaking have defaulted in repayment of loan. No justification is put forwarded by OPs to clear the point regarding non payment of maturity value of fixed deposit to complainant. Document Ex C-2 itself speaks out that they received Rs.40,000/- and in lieu of that assured to return Rs.44,000/-by maturity date, but on date fixed they failed to keep their words.

10                                   It is admitted by Ops 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. Act of OPs in not releasing the amount in question, is that due to some default in making repayment of loan amount by member of their society, but nothing on record is placed to prove any default on the part of complainant and it has no relevance with the

cc no. 285 of 2019

amount involved in present complaint, rather OPs are bound to make payment of amount received from complainant at agreed rate.

11                                           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 to complainant, is inappropriate and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. They have no right to detain the amount of complainant without any reason and have deprived him of using this amount, which is a trade mal practice. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to OPs to release the amount of Rs.44,000/- to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 3% per anum from the date of maturity till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses incurred by complainant on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of  receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under

cc no. 285 of 2019

Section 71 and 72 of the 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 : 12.04.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member