Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/372/2018

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Parveen Gupta

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/372/2018
Date of Institution	:	07/08/2018
Date of Decision	:	10/08/2018

 

Satish Kumar s/o Sh.Rattan Lal Singla, HN-104, Sector 4, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S­

1.      M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited (Through its Managing Director), Regd.Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow (UP)-226024.

2.      M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited (Through authorised representative), SCF-65, Shivalik Vihar, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

3.      M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited (Through           authorised representative), SCF 1110-1111, Sector 22/B,         Chandigarh-160022.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Sh.Parveen Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.

PER RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

1.         A perusal of the allegations contained in consumer complaint are, complainant had deposited amount of Rs.1,31,000/- each on 01.12.2016 with Opposite Parties and its maturity value as on 01.06.2018 was Rs.1,52,353/- each, total Rs.3,04,706/-. On maturity, the amount was not refunded on 02.06.2018 and the Opposite Parties had intimated showing unability to refund the maturity amount as accounts have been attached. Hence, deficiency in service alleged.
2.         Complainant has not annexed with the complaint the intimation letter sent by opposite parties showing the details of the attachment.  If the opposite parties have attached the FD account under the orders of Civil Court or Income Tax Authorities etc., then it was beyond the control of the opposite parties to refund the maturity value amount and it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service. No clarity was given in subsequent paragraphs that complainant had no liability to discharge and there was no such attachment order passed by competent authority vested with powers to do so under the authority of law.
3.         Another pitfall which we have noticed at the time of consideration on the admission of the complaint is, the amount was deposited with opposite party No.2 Zirakpur, SAS Nagar Mohali and registered office of opposite party No.1 is at Lucknow as reflected from the address mentioned in the title of the complaint. Neither the amount is to be refunded within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, i.e., local limits of Chandigarh nor the amount was deposited. The cause of action i.e. refusal to refund the mature amount arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Zirakpur, SAS Nagar Mohali, where there is an independent separate District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The simple averments made in the complaint are, there is also a branch office of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 at Chandigarh. A perusal of the documents annexed i.e. deposit receipts Annexure C-2 Colly shows that all the activities have taken place regarding the transaction at Zirakpur, District Mohali. No activity has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In a case titled ‘Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Limited”, Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, vide order dated 20.10.2009, the Hon’ble Apex Court under paragraph, which is reproduced below, has held as under:

     “  Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that    will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel      for the appellant submitted that the respondent-      insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh      and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the       complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We        regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to      be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act,         which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the   contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is         accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has     arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a    claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or     anywhere in India where a branch office of the         insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and    lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression         'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean   the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.        No doubt this would be departing from the plain and    literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such    departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case)         to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P. Singh's Principles of         Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79] In         the present case, since the cause of action arose at    Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission,     Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the     complaint. ”

 

4.             In view of the authoritative precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we have no option except to order the return of the consumer complaint alongwith documents to the complainant for presentation before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mohali against receipt on retaining its photostat copies while the record of this Forum after due completion be consigned to record.  

5.             The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge.

                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-           

Announced                                                   [RATTAN SINGH THAKUR]

10^th August, 2018                                                              PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-           

     [SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-            

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]

MEMBER