Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1421/2015

Raghbir Rattan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Umeed Co-operation Producer Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Satija

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                     

                                                                        Complaint No. 1421

Instituted on:   02.11.2015

                                                                       Decided on:    11.08.2016

 

 

Raghbir Rattan Son of Sham Lal Gupta, resident of # 143, Ram Basti, Mahavir Chowk, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                                                                                Versus

 

1.     Umeed Cooperation  Producer Company Limited, Street No.7, Ram Basti, Hareri Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager Sandeep Kaur.

2.     Umeed Cooperation Producer Company Limited, Regd. Office: Mayur Bihar, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Mahesh Satija, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1:          Shri Padam Pal, Adv.

For OP No.2                   :            Exparte.

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri  Raghbir Rattan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, the complainant availed the services of the Ops by opening a RD account bearing number RD-000-5000069 dated 15.2.2014 for Rs.5000/- per month for 15 months and the date of maturity of the account was 15.5.2015, of which the Ops were to pay Rs.80250/- to the complainant on maturity. The complainant deposited all the instalments with the Ops. It is further stated that though the term of 15 months has already expired on 15.5.2015 and the complainant has deposited the original certificate with the application with the Ops for the refund of the due amount on 17.4.2015, but the OPs did not pay the same, which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.80,250/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the due date of payment till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 2 was proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 1, it has been stated that the complainant never opened any account with the OP number 1 nor the OP number 1 ever agreed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.80,250/-.  It is stated further that the OP number 1 only forwards the certificates to the OP number 2 for payment and there is no other role of the OP number 1 in this respect.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of account opening form, Ex.C-3 copy of bank statement, Ex.C-4 copy of circular, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-22 copies of receipts, Ex.C-23 copy of acknowledgement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of letter, Ex.OP1/3 copy of resignation letter and closed evidence.  

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had opened  a RD account bearing number RD-000-5000069 dated 15.2.2014 for Rs.5000/- per month and deposited all 15 instalments of Rs.5000/- each with the Ops, as is evident from the receipts produced on record as Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-22, which further shows that the Ops were to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,250/- on the maturity date i.e. 15.5.2015, which has not been paid by the OPs to the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not repay the maturity amount of Rs.80,250/- to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.80,250/- from the Ops, which the Ops failed to pay on the due date. As such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.80,250/-  to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 15.05.2015 till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation and further Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

Pronounced.

 

                August 11, 2016.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                    

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member