Punjab

Sangrur

CC/134/2017

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singhland Investments Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rohit Jain

22 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 134                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  03.04.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    22.06.2017

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Arjan Dass resident of # 167, Ward No.9, Aggar Nagar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.       Singhland Investments Ltd. Care for your Future, Bus Stand to College Road, Near Prem Lata Hospital, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

2.       Singhland Investments Ltd. Care for your Future 208, 2nd Floor, Sayali complex above HDFC Bank, Near Gill Chowk Ludhiana.

        ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Rohit Jain Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :         Shri J.S.Dhiman, Advocate         

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

           

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Manoj Kumar complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he obtained  RD Plan  bearing registration number MLK/000473 dated 23.12.2011. He was to pay Rs.3000/-  monthly for a period of five years   and  after maturity  the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.2,43,000/-. On 23.11.2016 the complainant submitted policy certificate with OP no.1 who issued acknowledgement dated 23.11.2016. The complainant requested the OPs to release the maturity amount but OPs failed to pay the same till today. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to release  the maturity amount i.e. Rs.2,43,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from 24.12.2016 till payment,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is denied that the complainant obtained RD plan from OP no.1 and when the complainant has not obtained any RD plan  then the question of paying Rs.3000/- per month with OPs for five years does not arise. When the OPs have not issued any certificate to the complainant then                    the question of surrendering the same with the OP no.1 does not arise. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.   

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant obtained  RD Plan  bearing registration number MLK/000473 dated 23.12.2011 and he was to pay Rs.3000/-  monthly for a period of five years   and  after maturity  the OPs had to pay an amount of Rs.2,43,000/- which is evident from the copy of RD plan Ex.C-4. On the other hand, OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint. It has been specifically denied by the OPs that the complainant had been depositing  an amount of Rs.3000/- monthly   with them. Further, the OPs have stated that they did not launch any alleged scheme and the OPs  had not issued any RD plan to the complainant.

5.             The complainant has also produced on record receipt/slip of demand of payment dated 23.12.2016 Ex.C-3 which shows that the complainant has deposited the required documents for release of the payment after maturity period with the OPs.  The said receipt/ slip is also duly signed by the OPs. But, we failed to understand that when the  copy of  receipt / slip for submission of required documents for release of the payment Ex.C-3 and copy of RD Ex.C-4  issued by the OPs are  on record then on what basis  the OPs have denied all facts regarding deposit of the amount and issuance of any receipt to the complainant. We find that the record/ documents produced on the file clearly show regarding investment of said amount  by the complainant with the OPs.  

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the OPs have totally denied the facts of the complaint whereas evidence produced by the complainant on record fully proves his case. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make payment of Rs.2,43,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of 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.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                June 22, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )  ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                     Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-