Daljeet Kumar Bansal v. Trinity Multi State co-operative Credit Society Ltd.

Consumer Complaint No : CC/360/2019 Date of Institution : 14/05/2019 Date of Decision : 27/02/2020 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ============ Daljeet Kumar Bansal son of Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Resident of House No. 2170, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. Complainant Versus (1) Trinity Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Corporate Office: 2 Floor,nd Royal Square, Ring Road, Near Tedhi Palla Chauraha, Lucknow 226022, through its Managing Director. (2) Trinity Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Limited, SCO 40, 2 Floor, Phase-2,nd Mohali, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. (3) Trinity Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Sai Market, Chandni Chowk, Nabha Gate, Patiala 147001, through its Territory Manager Mr. Vinod Agrahari. (4) Trinity Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Limited, SCO 40, 3 Floor, Phase-2,rd Mohali, through its Branch Manager. . Opposite Parties BEFORE: RATTAN SINGH THAKUR PRESIDENT SMT.SURJEET KAUR MEMBER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA MEMBER For Complainant : Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate. For OPs No.1, 2 & 4 : Ex-parte. For OP No.3 : Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate. PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER Sh. Daljeet Kumar Bansal Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint under Section

12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Trinity Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that allured by the rosy picture projected by the agent of the Opposite Parties about their investment plan (United RD Plan-AA), the Complainant agreed to invest the amount of Rs.30,000/- in the said investment scheme of the Opposite Party for 21 months and accordingly, paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m. from June, 2017 to Nov. 2018, totalling Rs.5,10,000/-. Later on, on realizing that the Opposite Parties did not pay maturity amount on time, the Complainant deposited 17 monthly instalments instead of

21 instalments and as per the payment plan he was entitled for a sum of Rs.5,64,222/-. After completion of the 21 months, in the month of March, 2019, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties with a request to pay the maturity amount, but they, firstly, lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and eventually, flatly refused to release the maturity amount on the ground that the Complainant did not pay the regular monthly instalments. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. Nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. Opposite Party No.3 contested the claim of the Complainant and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that answering Opposite Party has not issued any receipt or passbook to the Complainant and has also not dealt with the Complainant at any point of time. Further, Opposite Party No.3 has never interacted or dealt with the Complainant and has no role to play in the present matter. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant has filed a replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.3. Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting Parties and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection. Significantly, the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.1,

2 & 4 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. Per Annexure C-5, which is a copy of the pass book issued by the Opposite Parties, it is evident that the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- with the Opposite Parties in the monthly RD plan of Rs.30,000/- p.m. The RD issue date was shown as 28.06.2017 with date of maturity as 28.03.2019. Per this document, on maturity, the Complainant was to get Rs.6,84,222/-. It is the case of the Complainant that he deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month from June 2017 to November 2018 to Sh. Narender Bhardwaj, Agent of the Opposite Party, whose name also figured in the said passbook Annexure C-5. The Complainant claims that as he deposited 17 monthly instalments instead of 21 installments, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,64,222/-, which the Opposite Parties failed to release despite repeated requests and endeavours. In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have taken prompt steps to air the grievance of the Complainant, which they miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a] To pay Rs.5,64,222/- to the Complainant;

[b] To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

[c] To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced