Delhi

North East

CC/64/2018

Sh. Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sahara Credit co-Operative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 64/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Satish Kumar S/o late Sh. Bhagwan Dass X-9/3, Gali No.9, Bramhpuri Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd, B-Block, Pocket-3, First Floor Rejender Santosi House, Near ICICI Bank Local Shopping Complex Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:

06.04.18         27.07.22         24.08.22

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

     Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that on 26.10.12 the complainant had opened a Monthly Deposit Account with No.24744201570 vide Membership No. 24741201140 for Rs. 10,000/- per month for 5 years i.e. 60 months. The complainant had deposited Rs. 6,00,000/- in 5 years i.e. 60 monthly instalments. The complainant submitted that the account in question matured in Oct 2017 and on 07.11.17 he had applied for repayment of his matured amount with withdrawal slip dated 07.11.17 and other documents and the matured amount is Rs. 7,78,662/-. The complainant stated that the Opposite Party had given assurance to him that they will give him the matured amount very soon but OP failed to do so. The complainant made several visits to Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not give any response to him and in March 18 the Opposite Party gave back to him all the documents instead of issuing the cheque in lieu of the maturity amount. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. It is prayed by Complainant to direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 11,82,328/-.

Case of Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party has raised the objection that it is a Society the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that Complainant became member of its society and obtained membership of the society. It is stated that the Complainant deposited     Rs. 10,000/- per month for 60 months as per the terms and conditions of the society. It is stated that the maturity amount of the claimant is             Rs. 7,39,150/- instead of Rs. 7,78,662/-. The Opposite Party was ready to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs. 7,39,150/-. It is also alleged that the complaint did not submit the original Pass Book and the Complainant also did not complete the required formalities. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the assertion made by the opposite party and reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has also relied upon the documents filed along with the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party filed affidavit of Shri  Sajjad Hussain, working as Sector Manager, with SCCSL office at-B-Block Pocket-3, First Floor, Rajendra Santoshi House, Near ICICI Bank Local Shopping complex, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

Arguments and conclusion

6. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. The main contention of the Opposite Party is that complaint is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Co-operative Act and also there is not relationship of Consumer with the Complainant. In this regard, it is important to mention that this controversy was set at rest by this Commission vide order dated 19.03.2019 whereby this contention of the Opposite Party was rejected by this Commission.
8. The other contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant did not submit the original Pass Book and as per the Rules of the Society the Complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 7,39,150/- instead of  Rs. 7,78,662/-. However, the Opposite Party has not given any cogent evidence in this regard. Therefore, this contention of the Opposite Party is without any merit.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,78,662/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of litigation expenses and harassment along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.  
10.  Order announced on 24.08.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President