Punjab

Faridkot

CC/22/158

Shinderpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Truth Way Agro Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Mittal

24 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :                   158 of 2022

Date of Institution:     12.10.2022

Date of Decision :      24.01.2024

 

Shinder Pal Singh, aged about 57 years, son of  Bhaimal Singh r/o Village Dod, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

 

1. Truth Way Agro India Pvt Ltd. Registered and Head Office at Bansal Complex, Second Chamber, 80 Feet Road, Ghania Nagar, Bathinda through Managing Director/Owner Rajwinder Singh.
2. Rajwinder Singh (Managing Director/Owner of Truth Way Agro India Pvt ltd) son of Piara Singh, resident of Chandsar Basti, Street No. 06, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
3. Kuldeep Singh (Agent of Truth Way Agro India Pvt Ltd. ) son of Jagtar Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of Patti Kangar, Bhadur Road, Village Bhai Roopa, District Bathinda.

                     .......Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:     Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, Presient,

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                   Sh Maninder Singh Sodhi, Ld Counsel for OP-3,

                  OP-1 and  OP-2 Exparte,

 

* * * * * * * * *

      

 (ORDER) 

(Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President)

                                     

                                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OP seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest and to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2                                                         Brief facts of the present complaint are that on assurance of OP-3 that OP-1 and 2 have good plan and they give fixed risk free return on amount invested with them, complainant took live stock rearing contract dated 07.08.2014 with OPs and invested Rs.1,00,000/-with them. Ops assured that their plan is not on the basis of market risk, rather they do business as banking business and give good returns. OPs assured to give maturity value of Rs.2,00,000/-to complainant on 07.02.2018 and OPs also issued Sale Registration Letter to him. On the date of maturity, complainant visited the office of OPs to get his legal matured value of Rs.2,00,000/-, but OPs replied that due to some policies, they are unable to pay the maturity amount and assured to provide the same on 20.02.2020. OPs assured to give interest at the rate of 12% over maturity value orally, but after completion of 2 years, when complainant again approached them to requested them to return the maturity value of Rs.2,00,000/-with 12% interest, OPs started making lame excuses and kept putting him off on one pretext or the other, but later on finally refused to pay single penny and said that his investment

‘cc-158 of 2022’

 

amount has been defrauded. All the act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.

3                                           The complaint was admitted after hearing and vide order dated 19.10.2022, notice was ordered to be issued to Opposite Parties to appear in person or through representative to file reply to the complaint.

4                                            Despite service of notice to OP-1 and 2 through RC as well as publication, they did not come present in the Commission on date fixed and after long waiting on expiry of statutory period, OP-1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.07.2023.

5                                                        OP-3 appeared in the Commission through counsel and filed written statement wherein submitted that present complaint is an abuse of process of law and complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts to mislead the Commission and therefore, it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is totally denied that answering OP is engaged in selling of any investment plans and he is not any authorized agent of OP-1 and 2. Further averred that answering OP is a separate and distinct entity and has no relationship of principal and agent with them. Answering OP is neither the seller of investment plan nor has he any role in payment of maturity value for said plan. Further averred that Investment Plan was sold by OP-1 and 2 and even

‘cc-158 of 2022’

complainant has no grievance against answering OP and moreover, answering OP has no role in redressal of same. It is reiterated that OP-3 was neither the agent of OP-3, nor he ever met complainant. No cause of action arises against answering OP and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                           Proper opportunity was given to respective parties to prove their case. Ld Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-2, document Ex C-1 and then, closed the same.

7                                 OP-3 did not conclude evidence, therefore, evidence of OP-3 was closed by order. However, reply filed by OP-3 is considered as part of evidence on the part of OP-3.

8                                         We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and OP-3 and have very carefully gone through the affidavit and documents placed on the file.

9                                              To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has placed on record document Ex C-1 that is the Rearing Contract Registration Letter issued by OPs to complainant wherein there is clear admission on the part of OPs that after completion of contract

 

‘cc-158 of 2022’

period, complainant would be entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/- as value of live stock amount in lieu of live stock.

10                                The OP-1 and 2 did not bother to appear in this Commission and preferred to proceed exparte vide order dated 04.07.2023 and did not come present in the Commission to contest the claim of the complainant and to rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid. As such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either OP-1 and 2 admit the claim of the complainant or have nothing to say in this matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.

11                                    From the careful perusal of the record and in the light of document  Ex C-1 that is contract occurred between complainant and OPs, it is evidently transparent and clearly visible from the document Ex C-1 that Ops have received Rs.1 lac from complainant and have agreed to pay him Rs. 2 lacs on completion of contract period. Thus, as there remains no doubt that OPs have received Rs.1,00,000/-from complainant and they committed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-to him on maturity of contract period, but on reaching the contract period, they started using delaying tactics to put him off.  This reveals that OPs received the amount in question from complainant but did not keep their word as per agreement and failed to return the agreed amount. Through his affidavit Ex C-2, complainant has reiterated his grievance. Opposite Parties not only entered into contract with complainant, received his hard earned huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-from complainant and failed to pay

‘cc-158 of 2022’

the agreed amount in time, but also deprived him of the interest accrued over this amount after lapse of agreed time period of contract, which amounts to trade mal practice. This Commission is fully convinced with the pleadings and arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that OP-1 and 2 have been deficient in services and there is trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 and 2 in not returning the amount received from complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed against OP-1 and 2 with directions to them to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OP-1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by  him and for litigation expenses incurred by him on present complaint.  Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest over aforementioned refund amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing the present complaint till its final realization.

12                     Complaint against OP-3 stands hereby dismissed as being agent, OP-3 has no role in making payment of amount agreed to be paid by OP-1 and 2 Company.

13                        Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

‘cc-158 of 2022’

14                        Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated :24.01.2024

 Member                                           President

          (Vishav Kant Garg)                 (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)