Punjab

Sangrur

CC/788/2021

Amarjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Goyal

09 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 788

 Instituted on:   22.06.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     09.05.2023

 

Amarjeet Kaur aged 71 years wife of Roop Singh R/O Village Ubha P.O. Lad Banjara, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Office: Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office: Mangal Jyoti, 101, 227/2, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal through its MD/GM.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.              

For the OPs               : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER

            SARITA GARG,  MEMBER

1.             Complainant has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that complainant availed services of OPs by investing a sum of Rs.45,000/- vide policy/Fixed Deposit acknowledged by the OPs by issuing    FDR    certificate    bearing   number 438-002124367  on 11.02.2019 with maturity amount of Rs.54,702/- after 11.02.2021. Thereafter the complainant deposited all the documents with the OPs for releasing of the maturity amount, but the same was not paid.  Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, he approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then he was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing  the Ops to release a sum of Rs.54,702/- along with interest and also for Rs.20,000/-   on   account of mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared through Advocate Shri Sanjeev Goyal and filed written response raising preliminary objection regarding status  of the complainant being a consumer and also explained as to how their’s is a society and it was only on the specific request of the complainant that he was inducted as a member thereof, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant to bring this dispute before the Consumer Forum/Commission instead of approaching the Arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause.

3.             Besides the above said legal objection, OPs have also averred that it is only member of the society who can avail its benefit and, therefore, after having well understood various rules, regulations, byelaws and objectives of the society the complainant became a member.  After expiry of the said period the complainant never approached concerned officials of the OPs, as such it was not possible for the latter to release the maturity amount.  That being so, complainant could not allege himself to be a consumer of the OPs as there is no subsistence of relationship of consumer and that of the service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  So, the complainant cannot legally seek any such relief under the Consumer Protection Act, so his complaint deserves dismissal.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of FDR and Ex.C-3 copy of aadhar card and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla Sector Manager and Ex.OP-2 copy of sample form and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that his client availed services of the OPs by investing a sum of Rs.45,000/- vide policy/Fixed Deposit. Further it was also argued that after the lapse of the expiry date, the complainant approached the Ops with a request to release the maturity amount but some how or the other latter did not accede thereto thereby compelling to approach this Forum/Commission.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant is not a consumer, therefore, his grievance cannot be heard sympathetically in this Forum/Commission. Fact of the matter is that the OPs happens to be a society and the complainant became its member and thereafter invested some amount in one of its schemes as such now if there is any sort of dispute between the complainant and the OPs then only option open to the complainant was to approach the arbitrator and seek his indulgence instead of rushing to this Commission, so the present complaint should be thrown out.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/-  with the OPs vide FDR/receipt correct photocopy of which has been produced on record as Ex.C-2.  However, there is variance between the parties so far as the status of the complainant is concerned as complainant alleges himself to be a consumer vis-à-vis OPs which can well termed to be service provider whereas latter has alleged themselves to be a society and the complainant being a member thereof should have approached the Arbitrator in case of any dispute  to resolve this controversy. If we look into the file, Ops have not placed any document on record which could indicate that the complainant at any point of time approached the Ops with a specific request to acquire its membership and then had invested with it.  In the same context, going a step ahead there is absolutely no material which could show that any such resolution was adopted by various officials of the OPs or if complainant was ever made to write his signatures on any such application form for becoming member thereof.  Even a sole and definite stand adopted by OPs in this regard vide a separate application also stood repelled by this Forum/Commission. On the contrary, the correct photocopy of the receipt relied upon by the complainant palpably go to show that in fact the disputed amount of Rs.45,000/- only was invested by the complainant with concerned officials of the Ops and in turn the OPs were liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.54,702/- on its maturity, but the same was not released,  which tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part.

9.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.54,702/- along  with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of maturity till realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.    Application pending, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

 

11.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                May 9, 2023.