Haryana

Ambala

CC/215/2014

SMT CHANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW AMBALA SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

R.P SINGH

31 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 215 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         :19.08.2014/

 19.12.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 31.05.2018

 

Smt. Chanda Rani wife of Sh. Lal Babu R/o H.NO. 904/6, Old Ghase      Mandi, Ambala City.  

  

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       The New Ambala Co-Op NATC Society Ltd. through its secretary Smt Asha    Mohan W/o Sh. P.K. Mohan R/o Kothi No. 1, Shashtri Colony, Near Kanch       Ghar Ambala City.

2.       Ram Sarup Mehta S/o Shri Shiv Charan Mehta Member of the New Ambala Co-Op NATC Society Ltd. Ambala Cantt R/o H.No. 276 Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh. R.P. Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Navneet Gutpa, counsel for Ops.                  

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that Ops are carrying out the business of society and responsible for day to day business of the society and are authorized signatory of the society. It is submitted that the complainant is having cordial relation with the Ops and on their misrepresentation and allurement, the complainant invested the following amount with the Ops:-

Sr. No.        Amount      Receipt No.                    Date of issue  Date of Maturity.

1.                Rs. 31,538/-             1240                 6.04.2008             24.08.2009

2.                Rs. 28,536/-             1295                 06.02.2009           24.08.2009

3.                Rs, 28,536/-             1296                 06.02.2009           28.08.2009

4.                Rs. 28,536/-             1297                 06.02.2009           28.08.2009

                   Further submitted that at the time of investment of FDRs, Ops have agreed to pay the interest @ 13% p.a. and further assured that interest will be paid monthly and the amount of FDR will be released immediately on due date but after the due date, Ops did not make the payment of the said FDR and Ops always put off the matter in one way or the other. Further, submitted that in the month of May’ 2014, the Ops flatly refused to make the payment of the said FDRs to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complainant was close relative of Late Shri Prem Munjal who was office bearer of said society. The deposit was made through Prem Munjal by complainant. The terms and conditions of deposit can be proved only in light of original F.D.Rs and in absence thereof it has no sanctity. The complainant is not in possession of original F.D.Rs. They further stated that after the maturity period, the complainant had visited to the office of said society for payment with interest, the society arranged funds from outside and paid the amount due in said F.D.Rs in lump-sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant in the month of May, 2014. The society had no funds of its own to make payment to complainant at that time. The amounts in lump sum against the original four F.D.Rs have already been paid in cash by Ops and nothing is due towards the society. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X and closed their evidence.  

4.                          We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and have carefully gone through the case file. It is clear from the file that complainant has invested the amount mentioned in the complaint and Ops have issued four FDRs separately for the period of 12 months. The Ist FDR is for Rs. 31,538/-issued on 06.04.2008 dated of maturity 24.08.2009, 2^nd FDR is for Rs.28,536/- issued on 06.02.2009 and maturity date 24.08.2009 , 3^rd is for amount Rs.28,536/- issued on 06.02.2009 and maturity date 28.08.2009 and 4^th FDR is for amount Rs.28,536/-  issued on 06.02.2009 and maturity date 28.08.2009 as per Annexure C-1 to C-4 respectively. In the above said four FDRs rate of interest has been shown @ 13% Per annum.

5.                         The main grievance of the complainant is that the above said FDRs were matured in the year 2009 but Ops have failed to pay the said amount of all FDRs inspite of giving the notice to the Ops till today.

6.                          The counsel for the Ops has taken Ist objection that  present complaint is time barred that as of all FDRs has been shown as on 24.08.2009 but present complaint has been filed in August’ 2014 from the date of  accrual of cause of action. In regards to the Ist objection of Ops, the same is not sustainable because Ops have failed to pay the maturity amount to the complainant and cause of action remained continued till the payment is not made. Another objection has been taken by Ops in this complaint that complainant has not placed on record original FDRs and without placing the original FDRs this Forum cannot decide the matter into controversy.

7.                          In regard to the 2^nd objection of Ops, they have taken the contrary plea in preliminary objection that complainant has already received the payment of alleged FDRs from the Society by delivering the same in original. In view of the above version it is burdened duty of the Ops to place on record the original FDRs and also placed on record the receipt in lieu of the payment received by the complainant but they failed to place any record. So, plea taken by the Ops regarding not producing the original FDRs by the complainant is not sustainable

8.                          From the above facts and circumstances, the complainant has proved that he has deposited the amount Rs. 1,17,146/- by way of four FDRs Annexure C-1 to C-4 but after maturity of the FDRs, Ops failed to pay the deposited  amount alongwith the interest at the rate of 13% annual. It is a great deficiency on the part of the Ops for not releasing the amount of the FDRs with interest and due to this the complainant is facing great financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment.

9.                          In view of above discussion, we have come to the opinion that non-payment of the amount of the complainant 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.1,17,146/-/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest as mentioned in FDRs @13% per annum from 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. 5,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy 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 :31.05.2018                        

 

 

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)  (D.N. ARORA)

     Member                                Member                            President