DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/45

Date of Institution : 18.01.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 06.06.2022

1. Jasbir Singh son of S. Hardit Singh R/o C-170A, C-Block, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar.

2. Jasmit Singh son of S. Jasbir Singh resident of C-170A, C-Block, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar.  

…Complainants

Versus

1. Unitech Signature Tower, Block L, South City I, Sector-30, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

2. V Goyal Finance Services having its office at 7-Second Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar, through its partner/ proprietor/broker/authorized signatory/person over all Incharge.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 11 and 12 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Munish Kohli counsel for complainants.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.

Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant Jasbir Singh and another filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Unitech Limited, Gurugram and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant invested in fixed deposit with the opposite party No. 1 through agent opposite party No. 2 for a term of one year to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the complainant No. 1 having FDR No. 1235135 dated 26.8.2013 having maturity date 24.9.2014 with the maturity amount of Rs. 28,031/- and Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the complainant No. 2 having FDR No. 1235136 dated 26.8.2013 having maturity dated 25.9.2014 with maturity amount of Rs. 28,031/-. The said FDRs have been matured since August 2014 and complainants visited the office of the opposite parties with the request to release the maturity amount of both the FDRs but they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also received a letter dated 31.3.2015 through post which is illegal and arbitrary. The opposite parties are not refunding the amount of investment made by the complainants which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 56,062/- with interest at the rate of 11% per annum to the complainants and in case they failed to make payment direction be issued to the opposite parties to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the bank account of the opposite parties freeze by the opposite parties. 

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay costs of the complaint. 

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. The opposite party No. 1 preferred to remain exparte.

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections on the grounds of mis joinder of parties, maintainability, time barred as the letter was issued on 31.3.2015 and action can be taken up to 31.3.2017 but present complaint has been filed on 30.1.2018 and beyond jurisdiction. 

5. On merits, it is denied that the opposite party No. 2 was the broker/agent of the opposite party No. 1 at any point of time. The complainants never availed any service from the opposite party No. 2 for any consideration. The opposite party No. 2 has no knowledge about the FDRs as it is not a party to the said transaction. The opposite party No. 2 did not receive any email from the complainants. There is no occasion to freeze the account of the opposite party No. 2. The complaint is time barred against the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. The complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 argued that the present complaint is time barred therefore, liable to be dismissed. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has received a letter dated 31.3.2015 from the opposite party No. 1, thereafter complainant approached the opposite parties number of times but the opposite parties neither paid the maturity amount nor refused to pay. It is a settled law if the right is not refused by the opposite parties then there is continuous cause of action, hence the present complaint is within the period of limitation. 

9. Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record affidavit of Jasbir Singh Ex.CW-1/A in which he reiterated the submissions as mentioned in the complaint. Further, he placed on record copies of FDRs Ex.C-3 in the name of Jasbir Singh for Rs. 25,000/- with maturity amount of Rs. 28,031/- and Ex.C-5 in the name of Jasmit Singh for Rs. 25,000/- with maturity amount of Rs. 28,031/-. 

10. On the other hand to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 not appeared before this Commission and preferred to remain exparte. Further, opposite party No. 2 not produced any evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. 

11. FDRs Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-5 is not disputed between the parties and complainants deposited the total amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed against two FDRs in the name of the complainants. Further, from Ex.C-3 it is proved on the file that the complainant No. 1 deposited the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 and from Ex.C-5 it is proved on the file that the complainant No. 2 deposited the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the opposite party No. 1. Further, in both these FDRs maturity amount and maturity date is also mentioned. So, we are of the view that the complainants successfully proved on the file that they have deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- against two FDRs of Rs. 25,000/- each for a period of one year and opposite party No. 1 is bound to pay the total amount of Rs. 56,062/- as per the copies of FDRs Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-5. 

12. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 28,031/- to the complainant No. 1 alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 24.9.2014 till actual realization and opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 28,031/- to the complainant No. 2 alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 25.9.2014 till actual realization. Opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- each as compensation to the complainants for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        6th Day of June 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member