KAWALJIT SINGH KHER Vs. OKARA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above named complainant has filed the present complaint averring that lured by the representations and attractive rate of interest, offered by the opposite party, the complainant made fixed deposits in the 'sugam Scheme' of the opposite party for the amounts of Rs.1,85,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- on 28.4.1997, as well as an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- on 28.10.1997. Under the above said Scheme, the opposite party was to pay an interest @ 2% per month on the abovesaid amounts to the complainant and had also issued advance cheques for the principal as well as the interest amounts. The said cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Jungpura, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' ). On 20.3.1998, the Bank issued a press release in the newspaper 'the Hindustan Times' stating therein that, the opposite party had closed its account with the Bank and the creditors/depositors, holding cheques issued by opposite party should contact the opposite party directly instead of presenting the same to the Bank. In pursuance to the said Public Notice, the complainant went to the Kashmiri Gate Office of the opposite party on 21.3.1998 and found it closed. Thereafter, he visited the Rajendra Place Office of the opposite party and contacted the Directors of the opposite party and requested for the refund of the amounts of his fixed deposits. The opposite party, however, kept delaying the repayment/refund on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent several legal notices to the opposite party to which no reply was received. The complainant, thereafter, filed the present complaint praying for the refund of the amount of his deposits totalling to Rs.6,10,000/- alongwith up-to-date interest @ 2% per month and Rs.80,000/- as damages with future interest.

(2.) The opposite party was duly served but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party and, as such, was proceeded ex parte. The complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence alongwith relevant documents.

(3.) We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person, as well as, have gone through the documents/material and evidence on record.