SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JARYAL MOTORS FINANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, camp at Ghumarwin, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No. 162/2009, whereby the complaint was dismissed by holding that complainant has miserably failed to prove the case set up by him and complainant is also guilty of suppression of most material facts and has not come to the Hon'ble Court with clean hands for seeking the relief. He has also failed to prove that opposite party is guilty of unfair trade practice or deficiency of service. Further, the complainant has been directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/ -. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) Facts of the case as they emerged from the complaint file are that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs, through cheque No. 060352, from his account No.010871, on 20.06.2007. Opposite party promised him to refund double of the said amount deposited by him, which comes to Rs.10.00 lacs, after 5 years i.e. after the date of maturity. Further, averments in the complaint are that complainant, who is a businessman, was in need of money in the month of May, 2009, since he had to make the payment to wholesale agent, as such, he requested the opposite party to make the payment, but, the opposite party had made payment of Rs. 3,80,000/ -, on 23.06.2009. Rest of the amount had not been paid and remained with the opposite party.  Complainant again approached the opposite party, on 22.06.2009 and requested to make the payment of rest of the amount with interest, but despite receipt of all papers and copies of Fixed Deposit Receipts, opposite party refused to pay the remaining amount and started quarreling with the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant reported the matter to the police. The opposite party has failed to make the payment of the remaining amount, despite repeated requests made by the complainant, as such, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party has been alleged. In this background of the case, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

(3.) Complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite party. In its reply opposite party has admitted that complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs, with it. Rest of the averments made in the complaint were denied and defence has been set up to the effect that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs, with the opposite party, with the condition that said amount would be returned with interest @12% per annum, but the interest would be paid monthly and the principal amount i.e. Rs.5.00 lacs would be returned on completion of period of 36 months i.e. three years. It is also pleaded that opposite party issued Five Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs.1.00 lac each, bearing Nos. 4570 to 4574, dated 18.06.2007, but when after one month, the complainant came to receive the monthly interest, then he requested the opposite party to pay him Rs. 10,000/ - per month and at the time of final payment, the same might be accounted for accordingly.