Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1422/2015

Usha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Mahesh Satija

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 1422

Instituted on:   02.11.2015

                                                                       Decided on:    16.02.2016

 

Usha Rani W/o Sham Lal, R/O # 143, Ram Basti, Mahavir Chowk, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Umeed Cooperation Producer Company limited, Building of MC Jarnail Singh, 1^st Floor, Opposite Civil Hospital, Sangrur , Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager Sandeep Kaur.

2.     Umeed Cooperation Producer Company Limited, Regd. Office B-160, Sec.1, Rohini, New Delhi through its MD/DGM Operation (Given up by the complainant on 1.1.2016).

3.     Umeed Co-operation Producer Company Limited, Corporate Office, Plot No.1631, HSIIDC Rai Industrial Area, Sonepat (Haryana) through its Executive Director.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Mahesh Satija, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1&3:    Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Smt. Usha Rani, 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 depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR with the OP number 1 under the account bearing registration number FD-005-00000117 dated 30.6.2014 for the period of 12 months with the date of commencement as 30.6.2014, to which the Ops were to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,500/- at the time of maturity i.e. on 30.6.2015. Further case of the complainant is that after the maturity of the FDR in question, the complainant approached the opposite parties for release of the payment of Rs.55,500/- and also deposited the original FDR document with the OPs on 02.06.2015, but the Ops did not make the payment of the FDR despite deposit of the same with 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.55,500/- 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 was gave up by the complainant on 1.1.2016.  The Ops number 1 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such, Ops number 1 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 1.1.2016.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of FDR, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of acknowledgement, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of bank statement, Ex.C-7 copy of letter, Ex.C-8 copy of postal receipt and closed evidence.

 

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

 

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR with the Ops, as is evident from the copy of FDR certificate, which is on record as Ex.C-2, which further shows that the Ops were to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.55,500/- on the maturity date i.e. 30.06.2015, which has not been paid by the OP to the complainant.  Ex.C-6 is the copy of statement issued by Bank of  Baroda and Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant which also shows that complainant had invested the amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Ops.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not repay the maturity amount of Rs.55,500/- to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.55,500/- from the Ops, which the Ops failed to pay on the due date i.e. 30.6.2015. As such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

6.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops number 1 and 3 to make the payment of Rs.55,500/-  to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 30.06.2015 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.

 

7.             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.

 

                February 16, 2016.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                       

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member