Andhra Pradesh

Krishna at Machiliptnam

CC/39/2019

Dade Durga Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Apr 2022

ORDER

Date of Registration of the C. C.: 04.06.2019.

Date of Disposal of the C. C.: 18.04.2022.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT CONSUMERS REDRESSAL FORUM - I:

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM

 

Present: Sri Ch. Kishore Kumar, M. A., B. L., Honourable President

                          Sri Nandipati Padma Reddy, M. A., B. L., Member 

                          Smt. Sree Lakshmi Rayala, M. B. A., Woman Member

 

Monday, the 18^th day of April, 2022.

C. C. No.39 of 2019

Between:

Dade Durga Prasad,

S/o. Ramalingam,

Aged 44 years, Business,

R/o.D.No.27-355-1, Pataramannapeta,

Machilipatnam, Krishna District,

Machilipatnam JCJC.                                                               … Complainant.

 

          A N D

1.The Branch Manager,

   Sahara India Pariwar,

   Near MahalakshmiAmmavari Temple,

   Jagannadhapuram,

   Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

 

2. The Regional Manager,

    Sahara India Pariwar,

    D.No.52-1-1/1-1/B, 3^rd Floor,

    Sri Surya Premier, Veterinary Colony,

    Gunadala, Vijayawada.

 

3. The Chairman,

    Sahara Shehar,

    Command Office, Gomati Nagar,

    Lucknow–10                                                                .… Opposite Parties.

 

 

          This Complaint is coming before this Commission on 04.04.2022, in the presence of the complainant who appeared in-person; Sri Mohammad Masthan, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3; and upon perusing the material available on record, this Commission delivers the following:

O R D E R

Delivered by Sri Ch. Kishore Kumar, Honourable President:

1.                 This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally (i) to pay the matured amount of Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization; (ii) to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and the physical sufferance caused by the opposite parties; (iii) to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the costs of the proceedings.

2.                The factual matrix of the complaint in brief are as follows:

3.                Complainant is a resident of Machilipatnam.   The 1^st opposite party is Branch Manager, 2^nd opposite party is Regional Manager and the 3^rd opposite party is the Chairman of Sahara Shehar.  The 1^st opposite party along with staff approached the complainant and informed about the money deposits in several sectors like Fixed Deposits, Recurring Deposits, Real Estates, E-shine and Q-shop etc., under non-banking financial institution.  The complainant after perusing the brochure documents shown to him, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.17,000/- (Seventeen Thousand only)under “Sahara A. Select” on 30.09.2016 vide receipt No.80609472387, Hologram No.992561818213 under certificate No.925002849195 for the period of 18 months i.e., till 30.03.2018 and the maturity amount is Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) and his wife D. Yesumani is the nominee to the said scheme.  The complainant further submits that after the date of maturity, complainant has approached the 1^st opposite party and requested to pay the matured amount to him under the above said scheme, but the opposite parties did not pay the amount to him except giving evasive replies.  This shows the conduct and the nature of the opposite parties and there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant has deposited the said amount of his hard earnings to provide financial assistance to his family members and for the future needs.   The complainant further submits that it is a crystal clear there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who are making unfair trade practice by causing mental agony to him without rendering proper service to the depositors. Having no other go the complainant is constrained to file this complaint. 

4.                The main and material contents in the written version of the opposite parties are as fallows.

5.                All material allegations mentioned in the complaint are not true and correct.  These Opposite Parties submit that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the relationship between the complainant and these opposite parties is the debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is financial transaction and any grievance on it, it should be redressed in Civil Court only and this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction and the complainant ought to have filed the complaint before the Arbitrator only.  Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submit that there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.  Due to the discrepancy with SEBI and the matter is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as such the delay in payment is happened.   It is further submit that the complainant is not entitled for damages for mental agony and for costs of this complaint as the complainant did not mention anything in the complaint about the mental agony and inconvenience caused to him and also did not file any documentary proof in support of his contention.  The complaint is bad in law, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directing the opposite parties as ‘the Sahara Group of Companies shall not part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders’.  As such the opposite parties not inclined to pay the amounts temporarily and the complainant file this complaint by suppressing the material facts as the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide contempt petition No.412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011.Therefore the opposite parties humbly pray that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6.                The complainant filed his proof affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 Sahara A. Select certificate No.925002849195, dated 30.09.2016 for Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) issued by Opposite Party No.1.

 

7.               On behalf of opposite parties no witness is examined and no document is marked.

 

8.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the both parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record.

 

9.                On consideration of the complaint, written version, evidence of complainant, and arguments, the points that arose for consideration are:

                        (1)        Whether the complainant is a consumer?

(2)        Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Consumer Commission?

 

(3)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

                        (4)        Whether the complaint is entitled to have the reliefs as sought for?

                        (5)        To what relief?

 

10.     To prove the case,the complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating contents in complaint and marked Ex.A1 bond.  A perusal of Ex.A1 certificate shows that the complainant has deposited Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) vide Receipt No.80609472387 under certificate No.925002849195, dated 30.09.2016  for the period of 18 months and maturity amount is Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) and maturity date is 30.03.2018. The complainant contended that after the date of maturity he approached the opposite partiesmatured amount to him under Ex.A1 but opposite parties failed to pay the amount to him and giving evasive replies and committed deficiency in service on their part and caused mental agony to him.

11.               The counsel for opposite parties vehemently contended that Complainant is not a consumer and relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties is financial transaction and if any grievance on it, it should be redressed in Civil Court only and the complainant ought to have file the complaint before arbitrator only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

12.               According to Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act ‘Consumer’ means  any  person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of differed  payment  and  includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of differed payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails  of  such services for any commercial purpose.

 

13.               Sec. 2 (1) (e) ‘Consumerdispute’ means a dispute where the person against whom acomplaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contend in the complaint.

 

14.               Similarly, Sec.2(1) (o) ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential uses and includes but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with Banking, Financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or  both housing construction, entertainment amusement or purveying of news and other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal services.

 

15.               In the present case the opposite party No.1 finance company collecting deposits from the complainant who is a member and paying interest renders ‘service’ within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (0) of the Act.  In view of the above quoted provision of Law, the complainant who deposited money under Ex.A1 bond with opposite party No.1, in pursuance of terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A1, is a consumer.   Further in Kasi Annapurna vs. Smt. Bharathi, 1996 (1) C.P.J 43 (N.C.) it was held that Non–payment of fixed deposit amount on maturity amounts to deficiency in service.

 

16.               As the opposite parties disputed the allegations mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant it comes under definition of consumer dispute.

 

17.               The next contention of the opposite parties that the relationship between the opposite parties and the complainant is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is financial transaction and any grievance on it, it should be redressed in Civil Court only and therefore the complaint is not maintainable in this Consumer Commission.

 

18.               Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

 

19.               The words “in addition to” in Sec. 3 makes it clear that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the existing Laws in force.  The Act provides additional remedies to the consumer.

 

20.               The words “not in derogation of” in Sec. 3 makes it clear that the provisions of CPA do not in any way abrogate even particularly the provisions of other Laws in force and other Laws are to be regarded as complimentary to each other.

 

21.               As per above Sec.3 we do not find any weight in the submission of the counsel for the opposite parties because the remedy before the Consumer Commission is in addition to and not in derogation to any other provision of any other law for the time being in force as provided under Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such this Commission has got the Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

22.               Here our View is also bolstered from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in ‘Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha  (dead) through L.Rs and others 2004 (1) CLT 456 where in it was held ‘’from the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main object of the Act is to provide for whether protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers.  To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at District, State, National level with vide range of powers vested in them.  These quasi judicial forum observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non compliance of their orders.

 

23.               In Lakshmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (II) CPJ 1 SC it was held that they (District Forum, State Commission and National Commission) are quasi judicial tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers.  They are not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system.

 

24.               Further the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Viswabharathi House Building Co-operative Society and other AIR 2003 SC 1043 = 2003 (2) SCC 412 held that “the Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of Civil Court and other statutory authorities.

 

25.               In view of the above quoted provision of law and decisions, we have no doubt in our mind that the complainantis a consumer and as the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties arose, this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. These two points are answered in favour of the complainant only.

 

Point No.3:

26.               As per terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A1 FDR, the complainant has paid Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) under receipt no.80609472387 on 30.09.2016 for which the complainant will get maturity amount of Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) on 30.03.2018 i.e., after completion of 18 months. The opposite party did not dispute genuineness of Ex.A1 Fixed deposit Receipt issued in name of complainant. It is not contention of opposite parties they have paid maturity amount to complainant. As per terms and conditions of after completion of maturity period of 18 months i.e., 30.03.2018 mentioned in Ex.A1, it is bounden duty of the opposite parties to pay maturity amount of Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) to the complainant. But opposite parties failed to pay the said amount under Ex.A1 inspite of several demands made by complainant and violated the terms and conditions mentioned under Ex.A1.  It is crystal clear that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not paying maturity amount as agreed upon and thereby the opposite parties caused a lot of mental agony to complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to claim of Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) i.e., maturity amount under Ex.A1.

 

27.               Further the opposite parties contended that due to discrepancy with SEBIand the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India all the accounts and properties are freezed and as such the delay in payment is occurring. It is not the contention of the opposite parties that SEBI or the Hon’ble Supreme Court restrained them from repaying the deposited amount to the depositors opposite parties did not file any piece of paper to prove their contention.

28.               The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant clearly established that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite parties for non-payment of maturity amount due under Ex.A1 to complainant. This point is answered accordingly in favour of complainant.

Point No.4:

29.               In view of the findings in points 1 to 3 the complaint is entitled to maturity amounts of Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only )  and compensation for causing mental agony and costs.  This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 

 

Point No.5:

 

30.               In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally as below:

 

          a) To pay maturity amount of Rs.19,771/- (Rupees Nineteen ThousandSeven Hundred andSeventy One only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e., 31.03.2018 till the date of realization amount to the complainant;

 

          b) The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental agony;

 

          c) To grant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost of the litigation expenses; and

 

          d) The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

Typed by the Junior Stenographer to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Commission on 18^th day of April, 2022.

         

           Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                         Sd/-

       President                           Member                                Member

DistrictCommission-I,             DistrictCommission-I,          DistrictCommission-I,

KrishnaatMachilipatnam.      KrishnaatMachilipatnam.       KrishnaatMachilipatnam.

 

 

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Complainant:                                                  For the Opposite Parties:

PW1: Dade Durga Prasad.                                                    -Nil- 

(ByChiefAffidavit)

 

Documentsmarkedonbehalfofthecomplainant:

 

Ex.A1

Sahara A. Select CertificateNo. 905002849195,dated 30.09.2016 forRs.17,000/-.

Original

 

 

On behalf of the opposite parties: -Nil-

 

                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                   President

District Commission-I,

KrishnaatMachilipatnam.

 

                                                                                                // T.C.B.O. //

 

 

 

                                                                                                Sheristadar,

                                                                                        District Commission – I,

                                                                                    Krishna at Machilipatnam.