Haryana

Karnal

CC/345/2018

Narender Singh Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Sunil Sinha Manager, Sahara India Parivar - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Chaudhary

19 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 345 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 06.12.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 19.09.2019

Narender Singh Chaudhary Advocate, resident of House no.53-A, Chaman Garden, Railway Road, Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant

                                        Versus

1. Mr. Sunil Sinha Manager, Sahara India Parivar, opp. Bata Showroom, Kunjpura Road, First Floor of Dr. Subhash Atreja Building, Karnal.

2. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226024, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                   Shri Vikas Yadav Advocate for opposite parties.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on 18.09.2018 the complainant had moved a request letter to the OPs for disbursing the amount of FDR no.96308970098860 (Account no.22006000094) in his bank account, details of which was duly furnished by the complainant to the OPs. After receipt of said request letter as well as bank account details, OP no.1 had assured to the complainant that said amount of Rs.9000/- would be credited in the bank account of the complainant upto 15.10.2018. Under this assurance, the complainant on 20.10.2018 had issued a cheque no.221176 dated 20.11.2018 amounting to Rs.10,000/- in favour of one Rishi Pal son of Harphool Singh, resident of House no.228, Ibrahim Mandi, Karnal, which dishonoured on 23.10.2018, because of non crediting of aforesaid amount of Rs.9000/- by OP no.2 in the bank account of the complainant. After dishonoring of aforesaid cheque said Rishi Pal sent a legal notice dated 30.10.2018 to the complainant and the complainant have been clamped in litigation just because of illegal acts and conduct of OPs. The complainant has also suffered a shock after receiving said legal notice, which has also caused mental harassment and humiliation to the complainant. Moreover, due to illegal act and conducts of OP no.1 the professional and social image of the complainant also damaged in the society. For the sake of his professional and social image, the complainant effected compromise with said Rishipal on 21.11.2018 by giving him double of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/- due to which the complainant has suffered total financial loss of Rs.27,000/-. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objection that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs. Complainant is bound with the terms and condition of the said scheme which is already mentioned in the Scheme Form duly signed by the complainant. Therefore, for any dispute between the company and Depositors/Account Holders, would be raise then complainant is bound to refer the matter to resolve before the Arbitrator appointed by the company. Hence complainant filed the present complaint is not maintainable. If the complainant who is a depositor of OPs has any grievance or dispute with the company/OPs, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration agreement under clause 12 of the scheme of Sahara-T, scheme which is reproduced as under:-

12. Arbitration:

        In case of any dispute between the Company and depositors/account holders the same shall be decided by an arbitration as per Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. Arbitration proceedings and proceedings arising out of the award shall be binding on both the parties.”

There exist a valid arbitration agreement between company and complainant/account holder, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is pleaded that no any assurance was given to the complainant by the OPs that the amount of Rs.9000/- would be credited in the account of complainant. It is further stated that if the complainant issued cheque to another person for discharge of his liability then he is responsible and it is his duty to arrange fund so that said cheque may not be dishonoured. The OPs has nothing to do with that dishonoured cheque. It is further pleaded that complainant has made double or how much amount to the person for which complainant is only responsible. The OPs are only responsible for making payment of Rs.9000/- which has deposited with the OPs, vide account no.10270402502 under the scheme of Sahara-T New on 31.07.2006 of which maturity had already been completed on 30.09.2018. The company was ready to make payment as per terms and conditions of the said scheme but the complainant did not surrender his original bonds and other legal formalities could not be completed that’s why the payment could not be made. It is further pleaded that complainant has demanded enhance rate of interest upon the redemption value of the Bonds Certificate issued by the Company due to which payment could not be made. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get extra rate of interest upon the maturity payment. It is further pleaded that complainant before opting the scheme of Sahara T has duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of scheme provides as under:-

“4(ii) Redemption Value:-

The Member account holder shall surrender the Bond Certificate to the Company and the Redemption Value of the said bond shall be paid as per the below mentioned chart. No additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount, if taken after the scheduled period.

(i) Redemption Value of payment:-

On deposit of Rs.1000/- Redemption Value shall be paid to the Bond holder after completion of 146 Months from the demand made with the Company as per the following chart (for monthly mode)

Tenure               Total                         Maturity

Months              Principle amount          Amount

146                   Rs.1000/-                   3,000/-

 From the above conditions it is very much clear that account holder is bound to surrender the original passbook with certificate and other legal formalities alongwith application of maturity as well as other documents required by the company for verification. After 30 days from receiving the above documents payment may be made. The depositors are also required to be present personally at the office of the company to get the cheque of payment and sign discharge voucher. But the complainant willfully did not surrender/submit the original Bond Certificate and demanded interest besides the Redemption Value before official of the company. As per above conditions no additional interest is payable if the maturity is taken after scheduled period. Thus the complainant is not entitled to get additional interest over maturity amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on 10.05.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Sinha Ex.OW1/A and closed the evidence on 4.9.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant on 18.09.2018 the he moved a request letter to the OPs for disbursing the amount of FDR no.96308970098860 (Account no.22006000094) in his bank account, details of which was duly furnished by the complainant to the OPs. After receipt of said request letter as well as bank account details, OP no.1 had assured to the complainant that said amount of Rs.9000/- would be credited in the bank account of the complainant upto 15.10.2018. Under this assurance, the complainant on 20.10.2018 had issued a cheque no.221176 dated 20.11.2018 amounting to Rs.10,000/- in favour of one Rishi Pal which was dishonoured on 23.10.2018, because of non crediting of aforesaid amount of Rs.9000/- by OP no.2 in the bank account of the complainant. After dishonoring of aforesaid cheque said Rishi Pal sent a legal notice dated 30.10.2018 to the complainant. Due to illegal act and conducts of OP no.1 the professional and social image of the complainant, the complainant effected compromise with said Rishipal on 21.11.2018 by giving him double of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/- due to which the complainant has suffered total financial loss of Rs.27,000/-

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that if the complainant issued cheque to another person for discharge of his liability then he is responsible and it is his duty to arrange fund so that said cheque may not be dishonoured. The OPs has nothing to do with that dishonoured cheque. The OPs are only responsible for making payment of Rs.9000/- which has deposited with the OPs, vide account no.10270402502 under the scheme of Sahara-T New on 31.07.2006 of which maturity had already been completed on 30.09.2018. The company was ready to make payment as per terms and conditions of the said scheme but the complainant did not surrender his original bonds and other legal formalities could not be completed that’s why the payment could not be made. The complainant has demanded enhance rate of interest upon the redemption value of the Bonds Certificate issued by the Company due to which payment could not be made. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get extra rate of interest upon the maturity payment. The complainant before opting the scheme of Sahara T has duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. As per clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the scheme account holder is bound to surrender the original passbook with certificate and other legal formalities alongwith application of maturity as well as other documents required by the company for verification. After 30 days from receiving the above documents payment may be made. But the complainant willfully did not surrender/submit the original Bond Certificate and demanded interest besides the Redemption Value before official of the company.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs argued that the present complainant is not maintainable in this Forum. If the complainant has any grievance or dispute with the company/OPs, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration Agreement clause 12 of the Scheme of Sahara-T.

9.             Firstly, we decide the question as to whether the matter is to be referred to the Arbitrator as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement or not?

10.           In a judgment Aftab Singh versus Emaar MGF Land Limited and another, Consumer Cases no.701 of 2015, decided on July 13^th 2017 in which Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi held as under:-

        “Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder and hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer For a, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”

Hence, the aforesaid contention advanced by learned counsel for the OPs is rejected.

11.            Admittedly, on 18.09.2018 the complainant moved a request letter Ex.C3 to the OPs for releasing the amount of FDR. As per complainant, after receipt the said request letter as well as bank account, details, OP no.1 assured to the complainant that said amount of Rs.9000/- would be credited in his bank account upto 15.10.2018. On the assurance the complainant, on 20.10.2018 issued a cheque amounting to Rs.10,000/- in favour of one Rishipal. Said cheque has been returned back with the remarks “Funds insufficient.”

12.            Further, the complainant has effected compromise with said Rishi Pal by giving him double of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

13.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs has contended that OPs had not given assurance for any type of payment to the complainant. If the complainant issued cheque to another person for discharge of his liability then he is responsible and his duty to arrange fund, so that cheque may not be dishonoured. Learned counsel for the OPs further contended that Rishi Pal has not been examined by the complainant to prove his version. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

14.            It has been proved from the letter Ex.C3 dated 18.09.2018 that the complainant has requested to the OPs for releasing his FDR amount. The date of maturity of the said FDR was 30.09.2018. This fact is admitted by the OPs. But till date said FDR amount has not deposited by the OPs in the account of the complainant.

15.            On the assurance of the OPs, the complainant issued a cheque Ex.C4 of amounting to Rs.10,000/- on dated 20.10.2018 to one Rishi Pal. Said cheque dishonoured due to insufficient fund. If the OPs would have deposited the FDR amount in the account of the complainant, then the said cheque might be encashed by the bank to the said Rishi Pal. The matter was compromised with Rishi Pal and complainant had paid Rs.27,000/- to said Rishi Pal, vide compromise-cum-receipt Ex.C11. IT is also admitted by the OPs that FDR amount i.e. Rs.9000/- has not been released to the complainant till date. The complainant has been harassed by the JDs. Thus, in view of above discussion, we are of the considered views that act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled for the FDR amount, amounts paid in compromise.

15.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.9000/- to the complainant as FDR amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity till its realization subject to deposit the original FDR bond. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.27,000/- to the complainant as paid by the complainant to one Shri Rishi Pal. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs. Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the amount of Rs.27,000/- and Rs.10,000/-are not paid by the complainant within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.09.2019                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                           Member