Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/660

JANAPRIYA FINANCE & INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENTS ( INDIA ) LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHAN SINGH SAIMBI - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                 Date of Decision: 24.08.2015

First Appeal No. 660/2011

(Arising out of the order dated 01.10.2011 passed in complaint case No. 1099/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal: Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006)

In the matter of:

M/s Janapriya Finance & Industrial

Investment (India) Ltd.

113, Park Street,

Kolkata 700 016

Through its authorised person

Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee                          Appellant

 

Versus

 

Late Mohan Singh Saimbi (Deceased)

Through his LR

Ravinder Singh

S/o Late Mohan Singh Saimbi

R/o 2142, Main Bus Stand Road

Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035                            Respondent

                                                               

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                         -                       Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.       Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 01.10.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Vide impugned orders the OP/appellant herein was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 21,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 21.02.2002. Besides this compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 2,000/- were awarded.
2.       In brief, the complainant purchased an Endowment Certificate No. 03/0668/86 dt. 17.02.1986 from M/s Janapriya Finance & Industrial Investment (I) Ltd./OP. He paid 72 monthly instalments of Rs. 216/- each and a consolidated amount of Rs. 2592/- in respect of twelve instalments. On maturity, the complainant was entitled to Rs. 16,800/- and guaranteed bonus of Rs. 4200/-. Endowment Certificate matured on 17.02.1992. The complainant’s case is that he sent various reminders and notice to the OP and last such letter written to the OP is dated 26.03.1999. The OP acknowledged having received the correspondence and the letter dt. 26.03.1999, vide letter dt. 21.05.1999.
3.       Defence raised by the OP/appellant herein before the Ld. District Forum was that the complaint was barred by limitation as complainant ought have come to the court within a period of two years from the date of maturity i.e. 17.02.1992. Ld. District Forum on the point of limitation made the following observations:

“The complainant has testified in the affidavit that on maturity of the certificate, he forwarded to the OP all original receipts and the discharge vouchers to the OP through its branch office at New Delhi, for payment of Rs. 21,000/- The complainant also informed the branch office of the OP that he had not received the policy certificate from the company at any point of time. Thereafter, the complainant sent various reminder/notices, which are Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/5. The AR of the complainant sent to the company a letter with all details of the claim. The complainant sent letter, dated 26.03.1999 specifying all the details. Copies of that letters were also sent to Shri B R Chakarborty, company’s Charted Accountant. Copy of the letter is Ex. Cw-1/6. The company acknowledged the receipt of the letter, vide its letter dated 21.05.1999. Further correspondences between the parties are, Ex. Cw-1/9 and CW-1/10.

There is a letter of the complainant to Shri T P Bhattacharjee, Managing Director and Shri B R Chakarborty, company’s Charted Accountant of the company, dated 28.09.1993. It was in respect to the notice for payment of maturity amount of the endowment certificate, which matured on 17.02.1992. Prior to that, the complainant sent a letter to Shri T P Bhattacharjee on 19.08.1992 and provided all necessary details of certificates, payment made to the company and the maturity amount payable to him in respect to the endowment certificate. It was sent by registered post. Photocopy of the postal receipt, has been placed on the file. The aforesaid letter/notice and correspondence between the parties reveal that the complainant has been pressing the OP company to make him payment of the maturity amount of the certificate. He has been so asking the company since 19.08.1992. That payment has not yet been made to the complainant nor the claim has been completely repudiated by the company. Consequently, the cause of action still exists and it was available to the complainant in the year 2001 i.e. at the time of filing the complaint before the Forum.”

4.       In appeal Ld. Counsel for the Appellant raised the point of limitation reiterating its plea that the complainant could come to the court of law within a period of two years from 17.02.1992. At the same time Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Ms. Shweta Bari has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the observation made by the Ld. District Forum in its observations on the point of limitation. Contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that any letter written by the complainant to the OP does not explain the period of limitation. OP chose not to reply to the letters of the complainant. OP however categorically admitted having received the correspondence and the last letter dt. 26.03.1999 vide its letter dt. 21.05.1999. Silence on the part of the OP does not extinguish the right of the complainant to file his complaint.
5.       Counsels for the parties present also submitted that a similar complaint in the Forum bearing No. 529/2012 was pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. Nothing has been placed on record by the parties pertaining to the aforesaid litigations. Be that as it may, the said litigation was pertaining to the period after the date of maturity of endorsement certificate i.e. 17.05.1992. In the circumstances plea raised by the Ld. Counsel of the appellant does not help him.
6.       Appeal has been filed on the grounds that the Ld. District Forum relied upon the photocopy of the certain receipts other than the receipt exhibit C-W1/11 to C-W1/15. Ld. District Forum in the impugned order observed that the photocopy of the receipt (which are now deposited in appeal) were given to the counsel for the OP to verify the same during the proceedings before the District Forum. On 02.02.2011 Sh. J.M.Bari Ld. Counsel for the OP made a statement in the District Forum that the receipts of all the deposits alleged by the complainant had already been received and verified by the OP. Ld. Counsel assured the Forum to file an affidavit in its behalf in the District Forum but the same was never filed. Be that as it may, the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the OP/appellant herein is a sufficient evidence against the OP on this point.  It does not lie in the mouth of the OP/appellant herein but agitate in the complainant did not made of any submission. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. It is being dismissed.
7.       Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
8.       FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

144616126.  

 

 

 

 

6.