Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/281/2022

Rekha Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Co Operative Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Manoj Kumar Rohilla

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	281/2022
Date of Institution	:	24.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	31.10.2022

 

                       

                            

Rekha Devi (age 42 years) s/o Sh.Krishna Mahato, # 1380. Sector 45, Burail, Chandigarh -160047 (4).

     ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., SCF 40-41, Phase-5, Mohali through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow -226024.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: 

 

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

 

          Ms.Anjali Singla, Adv. for the complainant

          OPs exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of three (3) connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.      The particulars of the case and the details of the amount(s) deposited by the complainant(s) in the scheme of the OPs known as “Sahara S Anokha” is as under:-

 

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Account No.	Amount Deposited in monthly installments @ Rs.3000/-	Date of start	Last date of deposit
	281/2022	Rekha Devi	25517800095	Rs.69000/-	08.02.2019	04.02.2022
	282/2022	Rajeshwari Mahto	25517201361	Rs.54000/-	31.10.2018	31.03.2021
	283/2021	Krishna Mahato	25517800133	Rs.69000/-	21.02.2019	04.02.2022

3.      The facts are gathered from C.C.No.281/2022- Rekha Devi Vs. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. & Others.
4.      Brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant started investing monthly installment in the scheme of the OPs knowns as “Sahara S Anokha” starting from 08.02.2019 for 36 months on denomination of Rs.3,000/-.  The complainant deposited in all a sum of Rs.69,000/- with the OPs.  In March, 2022, the complainant came to know that the company started facing financial crunches and as such the OPs started releasing the invested amounts to the investors within 4 months from the last date of deposit. The complainant requested the OPs many a times to release the invested amount but they started giving lame excuses and showed their inability to release the invested amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.        
5.      OPs initially appeared through their advocate and filed memo of appearance but subsequently, nobody put in appearance on their behalf to file the vakalatnama, reply and evidence by way of affidavit and as such, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2022.

4.      The complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record along with the original copy of the passbook presented by the Counsel for the complainant within the given time.  
6.      In the exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered her duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint and a photocopy of the passbook as Annexure C-1 which corroborates the version of the complainant that the complainant had invested the aforesaid amount(s) under the scheme of the OPs. The complainant has specifically deposed in the affidavit that the complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to release the invested amount(s) but the OPs showed their inability to release the invested amount(s) on account of financial crisis/crunches.
7.      Pertinently, the opposite parties, in spite of putting in appearance through their Counsel, chose not to file their vakalatnama, written reply and evidence, controverting the averments of the complainant, despite the fact that the case was adjourned for the said purpose.  Ultimately when none appeared on their behalf on 12.10.2022, they were proceeded against exparte.  Therefore, the stand of the complainant goes un-rebutted.  Accordingly, we are of the view that that the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the invested amount(s) along with the agreed rate of interest to the complainant, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
8.      Similar facts have been pleaded in other connected complaints and similar evidence has been led in them.  Therefore, in all these cases, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved.
9.      In view of the above discussion, all the consumer complaints deserves to succeed against the OPs and the same are accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-
   1. to refund the invested amount(s) to the respective complainants along with agreed rate of interest till the last date of its deposit and thereafter to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount till its realization, as mentioned in the table above.
   2. to pay ₹11,000/- to the respective complainants as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment in each case.
   3. to pay ₹7,000/- to complainant as costs of litigation in each case.
10.      This order be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
11.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

31.10.2022                                          

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M .SHARMA)

MEMBER