Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/282/2015

Sarvan Kumar Saini s/o Puran Mal Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Sahara India Sevingh and Investment Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

B.L.Sharma

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 282 /2015

 

Sharavan Kumar Saini s/o Pooranmal Saini r/o Near Chamaria College, Fatehpur Shekhawati Distt. Sikar.

 

Vs.

 

Br.Manager, Sahara India Saving & Investment Corporation Ltd.,Fatehpur Shekhawati Distt. Sikar & ors.

 

Date of Order 07.01.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

None present on behalf of the appellant

Mr .Alok Fatehpuria counsel for the respondents

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned District Forum,Sikar dated 13.2.2015.

 

The contention of the appellant -complainant is that he opened account no. 14529100264 with the respondents on 7.1.1992. He deposited the yearly instalments regularly. After ten years on 16.5.2002 he requested non-applicant to continue the scheme for further five years and again on completion of five years the scheme was on his request further renewed for five years and after completion of twenty years when he asked for re-payment of the money the respondent's contention is that he is only entitled for Rs.27,875/- which he had deposited for first ten years. Hence, it is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.

 

The court below has partially allowed the complaint and only Rs.27,555/- has been ordered to be paid with interest and compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings were also allowed.

 

3

 

The contention of the respondent is that it is true that account under Golden- 10 Scheme has been opened by the appellant with them in which for ten years the yearly instalments were to be deposited. On 8.11.2000 the scheme was withdrawn and it was the condition between the parties that scheme can be altered at any time. Hence, the complainant is entitled only for the money which he had deposited i.e. Rs.27,875/-.

 

Heard the counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

The court below has rightly held that account has been opened under Golden- 10 Scheme and the appellant had deposited Rs.1200/- yearly instalment for ten years. The scheme was withdrawn vide letter dated 8.11.2000. There is no evidence to the effect that scheme was renewed by the appellant for further five years + five years. No such evidence has been submitted before the court below. Hence, the court below has rightly held that the scheme was operated only for ten years. Thereafter it was withdrawn vide letter dated 8.11.2000 and the appellant is entitled only for the money which he had deposited

 

4

 

with the respondent which had been rightly ordered to be re-paid to the appellant and no interference is needed in the order of the court below.

 

The appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm