| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.200 of 02.09.2020 Decided on : 11-04-2023 Kewal Krishan aged about 60 years S/o Sh. Harbans Lal, R/o #137, Near Govt. School, Burj Kahan, Bhucho Mandi, Distt. Bathinda (Punjab)- 151001. ........Complainant Versus Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Opp. Hotel Amsun Pride, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda- 151001 through its Auth. Signatory/ Manager/ Incharge/ Director. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan,1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its Manager/ Auth. Signatory/ Director. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Sethi Complex, Opp. Polo Ground, Near Modi College Chowk, Lower Mall, 3rd Floor, Patiala-147001, through its Auth. Signatory (Ramesh Yadav) / Manager/ Incharge/ Director.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. R.K Duggal, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Kewal Krishan (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties in 2004 launched scheme for selling the flats and plot in the name of Sahara India Pariwar. The wife of the complainant Kaushaliya Devi applied with the opposite parties under that scheme but before providing the flats and plots, wife of the complainant died on 22-9-2008 . Llater the opposite parties failed to provide the flats and plot and converted the payment in the shape of FDR's with assured interest @ 11% with compounding interest in the name of the complainant which is called Sahara Special Fix Scheme (Fixed Investment Scheme). The opposite parties issued the FDR in March 2016 in the name of complainant, being the Legal Class Heir of deceased Kaushaliya Devi wife of complainant, as she died on 22.9.2008. The complainant demanded the amount with interest but the opposite parties issued the FDR in December 2016 in the name of Kewal Krishan/complainant for the amount of Rs.3,76,000/- with maturity amount of Rs.4,37,288/- which includes interest upto 29.6.2018 under scheme Sahara a Select SCCSL. FDR Instrument No. 925 000815435. The opposite parties also assured that total amount will be released along with uptodate interest. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties in the month of June 2018 and demanded the aforesaid amount Rs.4,37,288/- along with up-to-date interest and the opposite parties assured that the total payment will be released with 1 month, but the opposite parties till date not released the said payment and the payment is still lying with them. The opposite parties illegally gaining the profits by using the above said amount of the complainant which is still lying with them. The complainant made several requests to the opposite parties to release the amount along with interest but the opposite parties lingering on the matter. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay maturity amount of Rs.4,37,288/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. with compounding interest w.e.f 30.6.2018 and damages to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and pains in addition to Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite parties 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 parties is of Member and Society. There is no company eixist with name of opposite parties No 2&3. Therefore, complaint is defective for misjoinder of unnecessary party. If the complainant who is a member of the Society has any grievance or dispute with the Society, he is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per clause 11 of the terms & condition of the contribution of the scheme SaharaCredit Coopwerative society Limited. On merits, opposite parties have pleaded that they never made resquest to reinvest the amount. The complainant himself approached the opposite parties for further investment. The opposite parties are multipurpose co-operative society registered under Multi State Co-operative societies Act 2002. The opposite parties are not collecting the funds from General Public for the purpose of investment. Rather the members of the society made contribution in the society. The complainant being member of Society with membership No.25921600570 and certificate No.925000815435 had choosen scheme Sahara A Select to make investment in furtherance of the objects of Society and on 29.12.2016. The complainant himself approached the company to take the good benefit. The payment, if any, was strictly payable as per terms & conditions of the contribution. Under Sahara credit society scheme, there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. The complainant has made false and baseless statement. It has been pleaded that complainant didn't provide any document as alleged by him. Therefore the complainant is bound to deliver the documents to the opposite parties and after receiving the same the opposite parties shall be able to submit their reply. The opposite parties have pleaded that complainant before opting contribution scheme of Sahara Special "A" select, duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. Being a member of Society, he had contributed the amount for the furtherance of the objects of Society on 29.12.2016 vide under membership No. 25921600570 and certificate No. 925000815435, at Patiala, region Chandigarh office of Society. It is submitted that under Contribution scheme there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. Further, scheme does not provide interest over the contributed amount. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 28.8.2020 (Ex.C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Rameshwer Gupta dated 24.11.2021 (Ex. OP-1/1) and close the evidence. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as pleaded in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt of amount is admitted. The version of the opposite parties is only afterthought to delay refund of amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the payment was never denied to the complainant. He is not entitled to any interest after maturity period. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties and as such, complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the second objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties is that as per Clause '11' of terms & conditions of contribution of the scheme Sahara Credit Coperative Society Limited, all disputes between society and member of the society are required to be referreed to the Arbitrator. This argument of the counsel for the opposite parties has no force as Arbitration and Consideration Act does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. Even opposite parties have not produced any agreement or document signed by complainant and representative of the opposite parties to this effect that parties shall be governed by Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 as well as provisions of Arbitration and Consideration Act. As such, complainant has rightfully approached this Commission for redressal of his grievances. Moreover, in the written statement and evidence on record, there is not even a single word as to why the opposite parties are not ready to refund the amounts received from the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that he invested amounts, which were to mature on 29.06.2018. The complainant has asserted that opposite parties have failed to refund amount. Hence failure on the part of the opposite parties for not refunding the amount deposited by the complainant without any reasonable cause amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 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.4,37,288/-, maturity value of FDR's which matured on 29.06.2018. As opposite parties have delayed the payment, the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on amount of Rs.4,37,288/- from 30.06.2018 till realization. Opposite parties are at liberty to get filled up any form from the complainant, if so required for release of payment to him. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:- 11-04-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member | |
