Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 254

                                                                   Instituted on     : 17.07.2020

                                                                   Decided on       : 25.09.2023

Pinki age 33 years w/o Sh. Vijay R/o 366/21, Basant Vihar, Rohtak..

                                                                      ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Sector office,  2^nd Floor Ganga Place Complex, Subhash Road, Rohtak Through its Sector Manager/Branch Head.
2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its concerned official
3. Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, Chairman, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
4. Mr. OP Shrivastava, Dy Chairman, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024
5. Mr. Parshant Kumar Verma, Executive Director, Rastriya Sahara Press,  Sector-11, NOIDA(UP)

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Ramesh Chander, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that opposite party no. 1  is Sector Office of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and opposite party no. 2 is the society in which opposite parties took deposits of complainant with the assurance to give more interest than the Nationalised Bank. Opposite parties no.3 & 4 are the main persons, who are responsible for day to day working of Sahara India. Further opposite party no. 5 is the relative of the opposite party no. 4 and he is main person who is acting on the directions of the opposite party no. 3  and 4 who is responsible in withholding the amount of complainant and other depositors and opposite parties no. 5 is building pressure on the workers and employees of Sahara India to force the consumers to re-invest their maturity amount in other schemes run by opposite parties. Opposite parties invited the complainant to deposit money in schemes run under the name of the opposite party  no. 2   through opposite party no. 1 on the planning and control of opposite parties no. 3 & 4. The complainant had deposited her hard earned money in different schemes which were launched by opposite parties with different names and under different societies. The detail of the Society name, schemes, amount, maturity date etc. are given below:-

Since the date of maturity, the complainant is wandering in the office of the opposite party No.1 but no payment is made till today without any sufficient cause. The maturity amount has not been paid by the opposite parties despite repeated requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the maturity amount  alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of actual realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.50000/-  on account of harassment and deficiency in service, and also to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply and submitted that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 are society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is a member of society.  Thus relation between the complainant and opposite party is of Member and Society. The complainant did not provide any document as alleged him, therefore the complainant is bound to deliver the documents to the opposite party and after receiving the same, the opposite party shall be able to submit their reply. The opposite party never assured the complainant that the amount shall be released within days. The complainant can get back only the amount that he had advanced with the company, no interest is payable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on 26.08.2022.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties have availed several opportunities for filing evidence but has failed to do so. As such, evidence of opposite parties was closed vide order dated 03.03.2023 of this Commission.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.C1, complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.24000/- vide Certificate No. 925009722653, the date of maturity is 30.06.2020 and maturity amount is Rs.27912/-. After the maturity of amount, complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount alongwith interest but the alleged amount has not been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, opposite parties have not filed any document and also failed to adduce their evidence, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties no.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to refund the alleged amount to the complainant. 

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount  of FDR Ex.C1 amounting to Rs.27912/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 17.07.2020 to till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. 

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

25.09.2023.

                                                          ..................................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ………………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.