DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 589/2016
Date of Institution : 18.07.2016
Date of Decision : 16.05.2017
Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh resident of Village Sangheri PO- Bareta Teh- Budhlada, District Mansa.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Lotus Agricultural and Marketing Co Operative Society Ltd. Registered Office 605 A, Pearls Business Park, D-7, Neta Ji Subhash Place Pitampura, New Delhi, 110034, through its authorized signatory Managing Director.
2. Lotus Agricultural and Marketing Co Operative Society Ltd. 22 acre Scheme Barnala, 148001, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. K.S. Chahal counsel for complainant.
Sh. D.S. Dhaliwal counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member.
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Ranjit Kaur has filed the present complaint against Lotus Agricultural and Marketing Co Operative Society Ltd. New Delhi and Lotus Agricultural and Marketing Co Operative Society Ltd. Barnala (in short the opposite parties) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the opposite party No. 1 is an agricultural development company, which giving principal amount with interest on maturity date. It is alleged that the complainant purchased a six years fixed term deposit plan from the opposite parties vide membership number LMN469000000825 and receipt number F000000825 dated 23.3.2013 after deposit full and final amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the opposite parties assured that after completion of the said term, they would return an amount of Rs. 1,02,750/- to her. However, keeping in view the recent scams happening in the State, the complainant was worried about her deposited amount. As such, she was no more interested to keep her money invested in opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant several times visited the office of opposite party No. 2 at Barnala, but the officials of opposite party No. 2 did not satisfy the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties, but in vain. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To pay Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 7,700/- as litigation expenses and any other relief.
3. Sh. D.S. Dhaliwal Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite parties. However, they failed to file written version despite giving many opportunities.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein she has specifically stated that she purchased a six years fixed term deposit from the opposite parties and the opposite parties assured that after completion of the term they would return the amount of Rs. 1,02,750/-. The complainant further stated that due to recent scams happened in the State the complainant was worried about her money and therefore she visited the office of the opposite party for the return of the amount. Besides this the complainant has placed on record copy of receipt Ex.C-2, which shows that the complainant deposited Rs. 50,000/- vide DD/cheque No. 614858 dated 23.3.2013 and the receipt shows the address of opposite party No. 1 i.e. Lotus Agricultural & Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd. New Delhi. The complainant also sent a legal notice Ex.C-5 to the opposite parties. However, no reply was sent by the opposite parties. The receipt Ex.C-2 further shows that DD/cheque No. 614858 drawn on Union Bank of India on account of advance against Co-operative farming expenditure.
7. The opposite parties have failed to file any written version or led any evidence to deny said deposits. The receipt Ex.C-2 placed on record does not contain any terms and conditions, which may show that the complainant cannot withdraw the deposited amount before the expiry of six years. The opposite parties failed to place on record any agreement to the effect that the present case is premature and is not maintainable.
8. Principles of natural justice and equity also provide that no innocent person should suffer or lose his/her hard earned money from any powerful businessman, builder, real estate company or financial institution. Moreover, it is proved that the complainant has deposited Rs. 50,000/- with them and there is nothing on record to indicate that the opposite parties are entitled to forfeit the invested amount before the expiry of six years.
9. It is matter of great concern that the opposite parties at the initial stage appeared, but failed to file written version and opted to un-contest the case for the reasons best known to them. It is also in the evidence that complainant was having a fear that if she could wait till the date of expiry then there would be no recovery as in the State there are lot of scams have been reported. Keeping in view that the opposite parties have not dared to contradict the pleas of the complainant and the complainant cannot be left at the mercy of the opposite parties for her hard earned investment. Even in the banks there is no bar for premature withdrawal of the FDR. It is, therefore, held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have failed make the payment of the premature FDR.
10. As the evidence produced by the complainant is un-rebutted, therefore the present complaint is accepted to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (the deposited amount) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the due date till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the record.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of May 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
