Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/395/2021

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Munish Kumar

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/395/2021
Date of Institution	:	17.6.2021
Date of Decision	:	02/06 /2023

 

Ajit Singh son of late Sh. Sewa Singh resident of house No. 1193, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Incharge/authorized signatory/Director.
2. Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, Regional Manager M/s Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through.
3. Sh. Anup Srivastva, Assistant Manager, M/s Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
4. Sh. Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Anup Rai Agency Code No. 239711164 O/o M/s Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

Second address:-

Sh. Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Anup Rai Agency Code No. 239711164 R/o House No.10, Village Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Munish Kumar, counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, counsel for OPs No. 1 to 3. OP No.4 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the  Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under -

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OP-1 company had floated various schemes and invited public at large to invest amount in the schemes whereby lucrative incentives and interest was offered and on the assurance of the OPs, complainant had invested hard earned money in scheme floated by OPs by depositing an amount of ₹1,44,500/-   in recurring deposit scheme having maturity date of 10.6.2020. The complainant deposited the money uptill 15.7.2020. only under the recurring deposit.  The complainant approached the OPs several times for refund of deposited amount and even sent legal notice dated 18.5.2021, however, despite repeated requests, OPs had not released the aforesaid amount and in this manner the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.   OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint
2. OPs  No. 1 to 3 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 as complainant was a member of the Society, hence the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, stated that the complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the society had availed the membership at his own will and desire and deposited the amount. It is denied that OPs had assured the complainant that he will get any benefit or that the company will pay interest on the delay of payment. It is averred that the complainant should approach the appropriate authority i.e. Central Registrar against any grievances or should apply under arbitration clause. Even this Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  It is denied that the OPs have caused any loss or harassment to the complainant or that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.4 in its reply stated that it acts as an agaent of  OPs No. 1 to 3  and there is not fault on its part and the complaint is not maintainable against it.
4. Despite affording ample opportunities the complainant did not file rejoinder and as such the opportunity to file rejoinder on behalf of complainant was closed vide order dated 2.2.2023.

2. In order to prove their respective claim, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting document.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the OP No.1 is one of the Co-operative society  of the  Sahara  Group of Cooperative Societies and further it is the case of the complainant  that he is genuine depositor  of the subject amount  with the OPs, which fact has been disputed by the   OPs,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the dispute of the parties that the complainant is genuine depositor/investor with the OPs and he is entitled for the refund of the subject amount  is to be adjudicated   by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter referred to as Special Authority)  in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Pinak Pani Mohanty  Vs.  Union of  India &  Ors I.A. No. 56308 of 2023 in Writ petition(C) 191/2022 decided on 29.3.2023  .
2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that the main writ Petition is still pending before the Hon’ble Apex court and thus this Commission has still jurisdiction to decide the complaint and give relief to the complainant for the refund of the matured amount as claimed by the complainant and even order dated 29.3.2023,  no way bars jurisdiction of this Commission.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for OPs  No. 1 to 3 contended that as vide order dated 29.3.2023   the Hon’ble Apex Court has already appointed special authority for deciding the genuineness of the claim of the  depositors/investors and for disbursal of the amount, this Commission or any other court in India has no jurisdiction to decide the said question of genuineness of the claim of the depositors/investors or for the disbursal of the amount and the complaint of the complainant be dismissed in view of the aforesaid order passed by the  Hon’ble Apex court.
4. In the backdrop of forgoing facts and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, for determination of the genuineness of the claim of the complainant  or for the disbursal of the amount and for that purpose the relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced as under:-

                             “3.     Having heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India and taking into consideration the facts narrated hereinabove and when it is reported that Rs. 2253 Crores had been taken out of the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., i.e., one of the four Sahara Group Multi-State Cooperative Societies and deposited with SEBI in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account” and the amount lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account” is lying unutilized and the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which otherwise, shall be entitled to get back their money, the prayer sought in the present application seems to be reasonable and which shall be in the larger public interest / interest of the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the present application stands disposed of with the following directions:-

1. Out of the total amount of Rs. 24,979.67 Crores lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”, Rs. 5000 Crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who, in turn, shall disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which shall be paid to the genuine depositors in the most transparent manner and on proper identification and on submitting proof of their deposits and proof of their claims and to be deposited in their respective bank accounts directly.
2. The disbursement shall be supervised and monitored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court with the able assistance of Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist Justice R. Subhash Reddy as well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. The manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in consultation with Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate.
3. X xxxx xxx xx. Xxxx xxx
4. We direct that the amount be paid to the respective genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,000 Crores at the earliest, but not later than nine months from today. The balance amount thereafter be again transferred to the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”.

5. Thus, when it is clear from the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court  titled as Pinak Pani Mohanty (supra)  that the question of genuineness of the claims of the depositors/investors with the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies  is to be exclusively determined by the Special Authority and the manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by it  in consultation with   Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy, former Judge of the Apex Court and Sh. Gaurav Agarwal amicus curiae and for that purpose an amount of Rs.5000/- crores has been ordered to be transferred  to the Special Authority out of “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”   for further disbursal of the same against legitimate dues  of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative  Societies,  it is safe to hold that no authority including this Commission has power to decide the genuineness  of claim or pass directions  for disbursal of the claim except the special authority authorized by the   Hon’ble Apex Court vide the aforesaid order.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion,  the proceedings of the instant complaint are closed, with liberty to the complainant to  approach the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Special Authority) for determination of claim/disbursal of the same. Accordingly, the complaint stands disposed of. 
5. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.