Date of Registration of the C. C.: 04.12.2018.
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 18th day of April, 2022.
C. C. No.142 of 2018.
Between:
Pamarthi Lakshmi,
W/o. Pamarthi Venkateswara Rao,
Hindu, aged 50 years, House wife,
R/o. D.No.13/269, Nizampet,
Machilipatnam, Bandar Mandal,
Krishna District.
… Complainant.
A N D
1. Branch Manager,
Sahara India Pariwar,
Sri Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple Street,
Jagannadhapuram,
Machilipatnam – 521 001.
2. The Regional Manager,
Sahara India Pariwar,
D.No.52-1-1/1-1/B, 3rd Floor,
Sri Surya Premier, Veterinary Colony,
Gunadala, Vijayawada – 52008.
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 Sri T.V.D. Prasad, Advocate for the complainant; 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 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties (a) to pay an amount of Rs.60,050/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Fifty only) towards pre matured amount together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the premature date till the date of realization and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards mental agony and costs of litigation.
2. The factual matrix of the complaint in brief are as follows:
3. Complainant is a resident of Machilipatnam. The 1stopposite party is the Branch Manager, 2nd opposite party is the Regional Manager, 3rd opposite party is the Chairman of Sahara Shehar. The 1st opposite party is collecting money deposits in several sectors like fixed deposits, recurring deposits, real estates, E-shine and Q-shop etc. under non-banking financial institutions. The 1st opposite party along with its staff approached this complainant and informed about the said schemes.
4. The complainant after perusing the broacher documents shown to this complainant, the complainant made deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on 05-01-2012 vide receipt No.80105035293 under 'Sahara-E –Shine' for the period of 96 months bearing account No.12384200304 and maturity amount is Rs.26,120/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) and matured date is 05.01.2020 and the prematurity date is 05.01.2017 and premature amount is Rs.18,020/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Twenty only).
5. The complainant also made another deposit of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) on 05-01-2012 vide Receipt No. 8010535294 under Sahara E shine for the period of 96 months under the account No.12384200305 and maturity amount is Rs.39,180/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Eighty only) and maturity date is 05.01.2020 and the prematurity date is 05.01.2017 and the premature amount is Rs.27,030/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Thirty only).
6. The complainant also made a deposit of Rs.15,000/- on 22-09-2014 vide Receipt No.34005244198 under Saharayan Universal Multi-Purpose Society Limited bearing certificate No.304001814624, Membership No.91238400033.
7. The complainant further submits that after pre maturity period she approached the opposite parties for payment of the prematurity amount and requested to pay the maturity amount to her but the 1st opposite party postponing the same from time to time on some pretext or the other. Even though the 1st opposite party is the bounden duty for the payment of the prematurity amounts to this complainant the 1st opposite party did not repay the maturity amounts to this complainant. Then this complaint also requested to opposite parties 2 & 3 but her efforts are not futile. This clearly shows the deficiency of service as well as the cheating manner of all the opposite parties. Due to the non-settlement of the amount the complainant is suffering lot of mental agony in her late age of 74 years. It is a crystal clear that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Having no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint.
8. The main and material contents in the written version of the opposite parties are as follows:
9. It is submitted that the material allegations contained in the complaint are all not true valid in law. It is further submitted that 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 debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is a financial transaction and any grievance on it, it should be redressed in civil court only and the complainant ought to have filed the complaint before the arbitrator only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submit that there is no deficiency of 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, 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. Therefore the opposite parties humbly pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.
10. The complainant filed his proof affidavit as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 Sahara E.Shine certificate No.351003988082 for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), dated 05.01.2012. Ex.A2 Sahara E.Shine certificate No.351003988083 for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), dated 05.01.2012. Ex.A3 Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, certificate No.304001814624, for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), dated 22.09.2014.
11. On behalf of opposite parties no witness is examined and no document is marked.
12. We have heard the arguments advanced by the both parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
13. 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?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
14. The learned council for the complainant contended that the 1st opposite party along with its staff approached complainant and informed about various schemes and after perusing the broacher documents complainant made deposits under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 certificates and soon after the prematurity dates mentioned in said certificates the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested for maturity amount. But the 1st respondent did not pay the maturity amount except saying matters pending before the Apex court and the amount will be paid as per the directions of the Court. As per the terms and conditions mentioned certificates, it is bounden duty of the opposite party to repay the amounts due under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 but the opposite parties failed to repay the amount to the complainant and it is sheer negligence on their part in repaying the amount to her which come under deficiency of service.
15. The counsel for opposite parties vehemently argued 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 should be redressed in civil court only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
16. 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.
17. Sec. 2 (1) (e) ‘Consumer dispute’ means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contend in the complaint.
18. 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.
19. In the present case the opposite party No.1 who is doing financial business taking deposits from the complainant 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 certificate/FDR with opposite party No.1, in pursuance of terms and conditions mentioned on the back of 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.
20. As the opposite parties disputed the allegations mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant it comes under definition of consumer dispute.
21. 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 should be redressed in Civil Court only and therefore the complaint is not maintainable in this Consumer Commission.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 Forum 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 Forum has got the Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. In view of the above quoted provision of law and decisions, we have no doubt in our mind that the complainant is 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.
Pont No.3:
30. A perusal Ex.A1 shows that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 05-01-2012 under SAHARA E.SHINE scheme for the period of 96 months which gets an amount of Rs.26,120/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) after completion of 96 months. Ex.A1 further shows that it is also mentioned prematurity date as 05-01-2017 and prematurity amount as 18,020/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Twenty only). Further Ex.A2 shows that the complainant deposited another sum of Rs.15,000 on 05-01-2012 under SAHARA E.SHINE scheme for the period of 96 months which gets an amount of Rs.39,180/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Eighty only) after completion of 96 months. Ex.A2 further shows that it is also mentioned prematurity date as 05-01-2017 and prematurity amount as Rs.27,030/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Thirty only). In written version the opposite parties did not dispute the genuineness of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 certificates and premature dates and premature amounts mentioned in said certificates permitting the complainant to withdraw the deposits prematurely and further as per terms and conditions mentioned on back of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the complainant is entitled to withdraw the deposits prematurely. As per terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 it is bounden duty of the opposite parties after completion of premature dates to pay the prematurity amounts mentioned in said certificates to complainant. But it is not the contention of the opposite parties they paid amounts due to the complainant. It is nothing but sheer negligence on part of opposite parties for non-payment of amounts after completion of premature dates mentioned in ExA1 and Ex.A2 which amounts to deficiency in service on part of opposite parties.
31. Further Ex.A3 certificate bearing No. 304001814624 Membership No.304001814624 shows that complainant contributed a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) on 22-09-2014 under SAHARAYAN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED. As per terms and conditions mentioned in said certificate Members contributing may be eligible to get return on contribution rating 10%-15% (p.a) depending upon the return on investments earned by the Society. In written version filed by the opposite parties did not dispute the genuineness of Ex.A3 certificate issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of complainant. There is no restrictions for to take back the amount paid by the complainant without claiming any interest. The complainant herein claiming the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) paid by him without claiming any interest. It is not the contention of opposite parties they returned amount paid by the complainant immediately demand made by him. It is bounden duty of the opposite parties to return the amount paid by complainant under Ex.A3 after demand raised by him. It is crystal clear that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled the actual amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as claimed under Ex.A3.
32. Further the opposite parties contended that due to discrepancy with SEBI and 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 or opposite parties did not file any piece of paper in support of their contention. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant clearly established that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. This point is answered accordingly in favour of complainant.
Point No.4:
33. In view of the findings in points 1 to 3 the complainant is entitled to amount of Rs.60,050/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Fifty only) under Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 and compensation for causing mental agony and costs. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.5:
34. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties:
- to pay Rs.60,050- (Rupees Sixty Thousand and fifty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from 06.01.2017 till the date of realization to the complainant;
- The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony;
- To grant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost of the litigation expenses; and
- 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 this the 18th day of April, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
District Commission-I, District Commission-I, District Commission-I,
Krishna at Machilipatnam. Krishna at Machilipatnam. Krishna at Machilipatnam.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: For the Opposite Parties:
PW1: Pamarthi Lakshmi. -Nil-
(By Chief Affidavit)
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 | Ex.A1 Sahara E. Shine certificate No.351003988082 for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), dated 05.01.2012. | Original |
Ex.A2 | Ex.A2 Sahara E. Shine certificate No.351003988083 for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), dated 05.01.2012. | Original |
Ex.A3 | Ex.A3 Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, certificate No.304001814624, for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), dated 22.09.2014. | Original |
On behalf of the opposite parties: -Nil-
Sd/-
President
District Commission-I,
Krishna at Machilipatnam.
// T.C.B.O. //
Sd/-
Sheristadar,
District Commission – I,
Krishna at Machilipatnam.
