Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/541/2020

Mrs Reena Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hamara India Credit Cooperative Society - Opp.Party(s)

Tarun Malhotra

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/541/2020
Date of Institution	:	25/11/2020
Date of Decision	:	21/10/2022

 

Mrs. Reena Devi w/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar r/o H.No.179, Baltana, SAS Nagar (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Hamara India Credit Cooperative Society, SCO 1110-11, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh (Regional Office).
2. Managing Director, M/s Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office : Mangal Jyoti, 101, 227/2, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal 700020.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mrs.Reena Devi, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on persuasion and assurance, by the agents of the OPs, of good returns on investment, complainant enrolled herself as a member with the OPs.  It is further averred that the complainant had invested total amount of ₹2,11,509/- with the OPs as per receipts Annexure C-1 to C-8. However, despite maturity, OPs have not returned the matured amount to the complainant. Complainant had earlier reported the matter to the Chandigarh Police vide complaint dated 24.7.2020 (Annexure C-9) and legal notice dated 5.9.2020 (Annexure C-10) was also issued to the OPs through her counsel. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint praying for grant of reliefs as prayed therein.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, suppression of facts, jurisdiction and also that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties.  On merits, denied that the agents of the OPs had assured the complainant that she will get good returns on investment.  It is further alleged that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs as she was a member of the Society, hence the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.  Even the complainant has been claiming the amount against the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The complainant should approach the appropriate authority i.e. Central Registrar against any grievances. Even this Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  It is denied that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  Additional pleas have also been taken by the OPs that a member cannot avail the benefits of contribution as per the terms of the scheme.  It is denied that the OPs have caused any loss or harassment to the complainant. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, the complainant re-asserted her claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for?
3. Whether the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable?
4. Relief.

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. As per the case of the complainant, she invested the amounts with the OPs as per receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-8) and except receipt (Annexure C-2) the other investment receipts have not been disputed by the OPs. It is further the case of the complainant that by not releasing the maturity amounts to her, OPs have indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, as prayed for. On the other hand, the defence of the OPs is that the complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs. 
6. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, are discussed as under:-

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that after becoming member of the OPs, she had invested different amounts with the OPs on different dates in the year 2016 and 2018, and the invested amount has already matured in the year 2019 and 2020, as is also evident from the receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-8), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant being consumer is entitled for the amount prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant is not a consumer, rather she being member of OPs has filed a false consumer complaint against the OPs, as is the defence of the OPs.
2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it is proved on record that the complainant had invested an amount of ₹2,11,509/- through receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-8) and the said investment has been matured in the year 2019 and 2020, and further when it has come on record that the OPs have not released the said amount despite of repeated requests of the complainant, the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has contended with vehemence that so far as the receipts (Annexure C-2 to C-8) are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the OPs, but, as the document (Annexure C-1) nowhere proves that the complainant had invested an amount of ₹70,000/- through joining point scheme, the claim of the complainant cannot be allowed in pursuance to Annexure C-1.  There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as the document (Annexure C-1) does not prove that the complainant had invested an amount of ₹70,000/- through joining point scheme, rather it reveals that the complainant was given an option to join the same and in case she joins the same by accumulating maximum 1319 joining points, then she could have got approximately ₹1,31,989/-.  Thus, to that extent, the complainant has not been able to prove her case.  Moreover, receipt No.665024118773 dated 8.5.2018, as referred in para 1(b) of the consumer complaint is the same, which has been referred by the complainant in para 1(h) of the consumer complaint.  Perusal of the document placed on record by the complainant i.e. Annexure C-1 shows that the same does not pertain to the aforesaid amount of ₹70,000/-, rather same pertains to an amount of ₹19,934/-.  Thus one thing is clear from the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant that in fact she had invested the amounts as tabulated below :-

1	2	3	4	5	6
Sr. No.	Certificate No.	Date of Deposit	Amount Deposited (In Rs.)	Date of Maturity	Maturity Amount (In Rs.)
	665019778098	07.05.2016	19,934/-	07.05.2019	30,619/-
	665013258565	12.02.2016	8,359/-	12.02.2019	12,839/-
	665019778094	07.05.2016	13,425/-	07.05.2019	20,621/-
	665019778095	07.05.2016	5,959/-	07.05.2019	9,153/-
	665019778096	07.05.2016	10,739/-	07.05.2019	16,495/-
	665019778097	07.05.2016	13,903/-	07.05.2019	21,355/-
	665024118773	08.05.2018	70,000/-	08.05.2020	87,808/-

Hence, it is clear on record that the complainant is entitled to the aforesaid maturity amounts of the receipts (Annexure C-2 to C-8) having been relied upon by the complainant.

3. So far as the case of the complainant that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in not releasing the maturity amount which was invested by her with the OPs is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the documents (Annexure C-1 to C-8) containing the account number of the complainant.  The case of the complainant is only resisted by the OPs on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, she is not entitled for the said invested amount and she should approach the Central Registrar and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  However, the said plea of the OPs is not tenable as mere by giving administrative powers to Central Registrar will not bar jurisdiction of this Commission and complainant, especially when it has come on record that the complainant by investing amount in question with OPs became consumer of OPs.  Not only this, when it has come on record that the complainant had invested the aforesaid amount only after she was allured of good returns and even after maturity of said invested amount in the year 2019 and 2020, the maturity amount was not paid, which fact is also evident from the receipts (Annexure C-2 to C-8), it is clear on record that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7. In view of above, it is clear that the act of the OPs in not paying the maturity amount to the complainant after the date of maturity proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

Point No.(iii)

8. As already discussed in the discussion on points No.(i) & (ii) that the complainant being a consumer has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, it is unsafe to hold that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the same.

Relief

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the maturity amount(s), as depicted in para 6 (ii) in the above table, to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the respective date(s) of maturity till realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 21/10/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member