Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/110

SIVENDERPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD TATA AI LIFE - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL CHAWLA

08 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       110 of 2017

Date of Institution:      3.04.2017

Date of Decision :       8.01.2019

 

Sivenderpal Singh aged 62 years s/o Tara Singh, r/o Shaheed Balwinder Nagar, Street No. 1, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

1. Tata AIA Life-Bachat Samadhan, through its Managing Director, 14^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400013.
2. Rahul Mehta (Mobile No. 70653-09213)
3. Parbhat Gupta (Mobile No.96545-23328)
4. Nitin Patel (Mobile No.85860-47086)
5. Gulab Rai Khatri (Mobile No.95404-46053)
6. Balwant Moria (Mobile No.88267-12270)
7. Shalni Mishra (Mobile No.93118-30120)
8. Abishek Mittal (Mobile No.84599-17515)
9. Vipal Gosoami (Mobile No.78368-00204)
10. Jaswinder Singh (Mobile No.80850-68426)

All Executives of Tata AI Life, Sector-43, Chandigarh.

  ....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh A S Virdi, Ld Counsel for OP-1,                    

                  OPs-2 to 10 Ex parte.

cc no. 110 of 2017

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10,51,000/-alongwith interest and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- .

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant retired as Sr Assistant from the office of Controller, Legal Metrology, Mohali and before retirement, OP-2 to 10 approached complainant several times and persuaded him to invest his money in different companies including OP-1 Company and having trust in OPs, complainant deposited his hard earned money of Rs.10,51,000/-on different dates with OPs through NEFT from State Bank of India, Faridkot to the account of OP-1. It is submitted that before depositing the amount in the account of Ops, complainant received messages from OP-3 on several dates asking complainant to deposit the amount and he deposited Rs 10,51,000/- in the account of OPs. Complainant deposited Rs. 1 lac on 5.10.2015 and again Rs.1 lac on 14.10.2015; Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.11.2015; Rs.1 lac on 6.11.2015; Rs.2 lacs on 25.01.2016; Rs.1,90,000/-on 28.01.2016 and Rs.2,11,000/- on 11.02.2016. Though complainant deposited the amount with Ops but he neither received any document nor any policy from OPs. On repeated requests by complainant to send any policy document, OP-2 Rahul Mehta promised on oath that Policy would be issued to the complainant at the earliest at his residential place, but they did not released any policy or policy document or any such bond. Complainant also reported the matter to Police, but all in vain. Complainant has

cc no. 110 of 2017

made several requests to OPs to issue policy document or to refund his amount, but now, OP-2 to 10 are insisting that to get refund of his amount, he will have to deposit some more money otherwise his amount would be forfeited, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund his amount of Rs.10,51,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses incurred by him. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.04.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                      OP-1 appeared in the Forum through counsel and filed written reply. Notice was issued to OP No. 2 to 10 through registered post as well as publication. Despite service of summons alongwith copy of complaint and documents through RC AD as well as through publication in Amar Ujala, OPs No. 2 to 10 did not make appearance in the Forum either in person or through counsel. It is apparent that they are not interested in contesting the claim and are intentionally evading service. Therefore, vide order dated 25.09.2017, OPs No. 2 to 10 are proceeded against exparte.                    

5                                     In reply, OP-1 took preliminary objections that allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and no cause of action arises against answering Op. All the allegations are totally denied being incorrect. It is averred that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as complainant has tried to mislead and misguide the Hon’ble Forum. It is further

 

cc no. 110 of 2017

averred that complainant has created a false story in his complaint and involved answering OP in the transactions done by him with bogus persons to mislead the Forum. It is asserted that OP-1 neither received any amount from complainant nor received any amount from OP-2 to 10 and he has not link with any of them. OP-1 has no connection with OP-2 to 10 and they are neither agents or advisers of answering OP and even account numbers mentioned in complaint are not of OP-1 therefore, answering OP is not liable for any forgery or fraud committed upon complainant. There is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of answering OP and even this matter can be decided by the Civil Court and moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. However, on merits, OP-1 asserted that answering OP has no link with complainant and with OP-2 to 10 and have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same averments as taken in preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                       Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harsimran Singh as EX OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the same. 

8                                              We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and OP-1 and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file by respective parties.

 

cc no. 110 of 2017

9                                              Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on persuasion of OPs, complainant deposited his hard earned money of Rs.10,51,000/- on different dates with OPs through NEFT from State Bank of India, Faridkot to the account of OP-1. It is submitted that before depositing the amount in the account of Ops, complainant received messages from OP-3 on several dates asking complainant to deposit the amount and he deposited Rs 10,51,000/- in the account of OPs. Complainant deposited Rs. 1 lac on 5.10.2015 and again Rs.1 lac on 14.10.2015; Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.11.2015; Rs.1 lac on 6.11.2015; Rs.2 lacs on 25.01.2016; Rs.1,90,000/-on 28.01.2016 and Rs.2,11,000/- on 11.02.2016. Complainant deposited the amount with Ops but he never received any document or any policy from OPs. Even despite repeated requests by complainant to send any policy document, he was not issued any document. OP-2 Rahul Mehta promised on oath that Policy would be issued to the complainant at the earliest at his residential place, but he did not release any policy or policy document or any such bond. Complainant also reported the matter to Police, but all in vain. Complainant has made several requests to OPs to issue policy document or to refund his amount, but now, OP-2 to 10 are insisting that to get refund of his amount, he will have to deposit some more money otherwise his amount would be forfeited, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund his amount of Rs10,51,000/-with interest and also prayed for compensation for harassment and for  litigation expenses incurred by him. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 4.

10                                  Ld counsel for OP-1 argued that allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and no cause of action arises against  them. Present complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as

cc no. 110 of 2017

complainant has tried to mislead and misguide the Hon’ble Forum. Complainant has created a false story and involved answering OP in the transactions done by  him with bogus persons to mislead the Forum. OP-1 neither received any amount from complainant nor received from OP-2 to 10 and he has not link with them. OP-1 has no connection with OP-2 to 10 as they are neither agents or advisers of OP-1 and even account numbers mentioned in complaint are not of OP-1 and thus, OP-1 is not liable for any forgery or fraud committed upon complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1  and have no link with complainant and with OP-2 to 10. OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                        Complainant has relied upon his affidavit Ex C-1 through which complainant has narrated his entire grievance. Ex C-2 is the copy of computer generated message of Bachat Samadhan account. Ex C-3 is copy of account statement and Ex C-4 is also copy of account statement of complainant. On the other hand document  produced by OP-1 dated 16.09.2015 Ex OP-3 clearly proves the fact that it is related with Bachat Samadhan. Further document Ex Op-6 leaves no doubt that amount of Rs.10,100/-was deposited in favour of Bachat Samadhan on 22.09.2015.

12                                                          After  careful  perusal of the evidence and documents placed on record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that copies of statement of account brought forward by complainant  himself as Ex C-3 and Ex C-4, pertain to Bachat Samadhan, IDBI Bank, which is not a party in the present complaint. Complainant has failed to prove any link between OPs and Bachat Samadhan and therefore, relief sought cannot be provided against the person or party which is not impleaded

cc no. 110 of 2017

in the array of Ops. Complaint is not maintainable in the present form due to non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. Thus, we have  come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complainant has failed to produce cogent evidence on record to prove his case. Hence, complaint filed by complainant stands dismissed. In peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 8.01.2019

                                                 Member                          President  

                                               (Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)