DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.52 of 19-02-2018

Decided on 23-07-2019

Ajay Kumar S/o Bhim Sen R/o C/o M/s Ram Saran Dass Pyare Lal, Indira Market, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Regd. Office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Authorized Signatory.

2.Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., (Sahara India) Opp. Hotel Silver Star, Amsun Pride, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Authorized Signatory.

3.Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Branch Office at Chandigarh, HCO, 360-361, Sector 34A Near Orbit Hotel, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/Incharge.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Vikas Singla, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Sh.Rajesh Kumar Duggal, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Ajay Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties induced him to invest money with Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. in the shape of FDR by alluring that he will get handsome outputs on amount deposited with the society. He took membership with the society vide Membership No.23971601135 and invested amounts with opposite parties, details of which are as under:-

   Certificate No.	Amount in Rs.	Date of deposit	Date of Maturity	Maturity Value
   705000245279	1,00,000/-	30.9.2016	30.9.2017	1,09,000/-
   705000245278	1,50,000/-	30.9.2016	30.9.2017	1,63,500/-
   705000245277	1,00,000/-	30.9.2016	30.9.2017	1,09,000/-
   925004295712	1,00,000/-	30.9.2016	30.3.2018	1,16,300/-
   925004295713	1,00,000/-	30.9.2016	30.3.2018	1,16,300/-
   925004295714	18,000/-	30.9.2016	30.3.2018	20,931/-
   925004295715	18,000/-	30.9.2016	30.3.2018	20,931/-
   925004295716	11,000/-	30.9.2016	30.3.2018	12,793/-

    

3. It is further mentioned that as per aforesaid certificates, first three certificates bearing No.705000245279, 705000245278 and 705000245277 matured on 30.9.2017 and remaining are going to mature on 30.3.2018. The complainant repeatedly approached opposite parties to make payment of three certificates, which have already become mature on 30.9.2017, but to no effect. He also got issued legal notice dated 1.2.2018, but to no response. Opposite parties have also refused to release amounts.

4. It is further alleged that due to act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from mental tension, agony, botheration and huge financial losses. For these sufferings, he has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.3,81,500/- with interest. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In their joint written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have raised the preliminary objections that the complainant became member of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited at its Sector Office Chandigarh. Being a member of Society, he had chosen Sahara A Select Scheme and Sahara Y Select. He opened account at Sector Office Chandigarh by submitting application at Chandigarh office. As such, if any cause-of-action with regard to the accounts has arisen, the same is at Chandigarh. Only District Forum Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction over all the disputes. No cause-of-action or part of cause-of-action has arisen with territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

   To support these submissions, learned counsel for opposite parties has also quoted some cases law, reference of which is not considered necessary at this stage.

6. Further preliminary objections are that the complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite parties. There is no relation of 'consumer' and 'service provider' between the complainant and opposite parties. The relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is member and society. As such, for any dispute between society and member, this complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration Agreement under Clause 11 of Scheme Sahara.

7. Thereafter on merits, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have pleaded that the complainant has voluntarily chosen to invest amounts under different schemes. Receipt of amounts with due date is not disputed. It is denied that the complainant approached approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for release of amounts.

8. It is further mentioned that the complainant was provided application form for refund and he was asked to submit the duly filled and signed form alongwith original certificates of Sahara Y Select accounts, but he forced the officials to make the payment of Sahara A Select accounts also. He has also claimed additional interest for the period, which was elapsed after date of maturity. No additional interest is payable on maturity amount, if payment is taken after scheduled period. The complainant was adamant on his demand and he willfully did not submit the application form or surrender the original certificates. The society was ready to make payment of Sahara Y Select Scheme, but due to negligence of the complainant, payment could not have been made. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. In its separate written version, opposite party No.3 has also supported the version of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

10. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

11. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 11.3.2019, (Ex.C1); photocopies of certificates, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C9); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C10); postal receipts, (Ex.C11 and Ex.C12) and closed the evidence.

12. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Singh dated 25.4.2019, (Ex.OP1/1); specimen of application forms, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence.

13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

14. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant is resident of Rampura Phul. Opposite parties offered the scheme at Bathinda and complainant invested amount at Bathinda and received certificates at Bathinda. When opposite parties had office at Bathinda, the complainant was having no reason to go Chandigarh and invest amount at Chandigarh. Therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt of amount is admitted. There is nothing to show that opposite parties ever asked the complainant to complete any formalities for release of amount. This version is only afterthought version to delay refund of amount.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant himself has produced on record certificates, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C9). These certificates were issued from Chandigarh centre. It is to be accepted that amounts were received at Chandigarh. Therefore, no part of cause-of-action accrued at Bathinda. As such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

17. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the payment was never denied to the complainant, but he failed to complete formalities. He is at fault for this delay. He is not entitled to any interest after maturity period.

    To support these submissions, learned counsel for opposite parties has cited following case law:-

    (i) Sonic Surgical Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, 2010(1) CPR 28 (SC);

    (ii) Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Seppo Rally Oy and Another, AIR 2000 SC 62;

    (iii) Rajan Kapoor Vs. State Officer, HUDA, Ambala and Another, 2012 (1) CPR 97 (NC);

    (iv) American Express Bank Limited Travel Related Services and Another Vs. Rajesh Gupta and others, 2000(1) CPR 22 (NC);

    (v) Prefex Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Widia (India) Ltd. and Anr., III (2005) CPJ 90 (NC);

    (vi) National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jindal Steel Industries & Anr., 2000 (1) CPR 147;

    (vii) A. Savithri and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2010 (4) CPR 105.

18. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through case law cited by learned counsel for opposite parties.

19. Opposite parties have mainly raised objection regarding territorial jurisdiction on the strength that the receipts regarding deposit were issued from Regional Office, Chandigarh.

20. Admittedly, opposite parties were having branch office at Bathinda. The complainant has pleaded that he was allured by branch office Bathinda and payment was made at Bathinda. When opposite parties were having office at Bathinda, there was no purpose for the complainant to go Chandigarh to invest amounts in the shape of FDRs. There was also no purpose for opposite parties to open branch at Bathinda, if branch was not to accept investments/deposits. Therefore, their version cannot be accepted only for the reason that receipts were allegedly issued from Chandigarh. The receipts of payment by branch office and issuance of FDRs by regional office may be internal arrangement of opposite parties. As amounts were deposited at Bathinda, therefore, the complainant has cause-of-action at Bathinda.

    Cases law relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties is not applicable to the facts of case in hand. Therefore, it is held that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

21. The complainant has pleaded that he invested amounts, which were to mature on 30.9.2017. This fact is also not denied by opposite parties. The complainant has asserted that opposite parties have failed to refund amount. Objection of opposite parties is that the complainant has failed to complete formalities, but fact remains that complainant has not been made payments. It amounts to deficiency in services.

22. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,81,500/-, payment of FDR's which matured on 30.9.2017. As opposite parties have delayed the payment, the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum as compensation on amount of Rs.3,81,500/- from 30.9.2017 till date of payment. Opposite parties are at liberty to get filled up any form from the complainant, if so required for release of payment to him.

23. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

24. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

25. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    23-07-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member