| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.198 of 09.09.2020 Decided on :11-04-2023 Krishan Devi aged about 65 years W/o Sh. Bhushan Lal, R/o Tarsem Chakki Wali Gali, 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 Krishna Devi (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 complainant applied with the opposite parties by depositing the amount of Rs.2,70,698/- under that scheme later 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 deposited the amount in the shape of FDR in the name of complainant. The complainant demanded the amount along with interest from opposite parties in 2016 but they did not release the full amount. Thereafter the complainant approached many times to the opposite parties at Bathinda and Patiala offices for refund the amount and submitted all the original FDR's with the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not refund the amount of the complainant and arbitrarily and against the wishes of the complainant issued the new FDR w.e.f 02.12.2019 under Sahara A Select Scheme (Fixed Investment Scheme) for the amount of Rs.2,81,000/- (FDR925 010712025) for 18 Months i.e. upto 02.06.2021 with maturity amount of Rs.3,22,307/-. The opposite parties promised/assured to release the payment but instead of paying the amount of Rs. 2,81,000/- which was due on 2.12.2019 issued the another FDR to the complainant wihtout any consent. It is alleged that thereafter complainant approached the opposite parties in the month of Dec,2019 and demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,81,000/- along with up-to-date interest and the opposite parties assured that the total payment will be released along with up-to-date interest @ 11% within 1 month but till date the payment is still lying with the opposite parties. Now more than 8 months lapsed after maturity but there is no response from their side and the opposite parties illegally gaining the profits by using the above said amount of the complainant which is still lying with the opposite partiess. 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.2,81,000/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. with compounding interest w.e.f 01.05.2020 and Rs. 50,000/- as damages in addition to Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not consumer; there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties. 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, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per clause 11 of the terms & condition of the contribution of the scheme SaharaCreidt Co-operative 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. It is submitted that the complainant being member of Society with membership No.925010712025 had choosen Sahara Select A at sector Patiala, Region Chandigarh to make investment in furtherance of the objects of society and on 2.12.2019 and maturity date of the said scheme is 2.6.2021. 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 as per membership No.925010712025 certificate No.25921600163 of the complainant, maturity date is 2.6.2021. 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 her affidavit dated 28.8.2020 (Ex.C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4). 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 closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as pleaded in respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 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 Cooperative Society Limited, all disputes between society and member of the society are required to be referred 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 she invested amounts, which were to mature on 2.06.2021 which is evident from Ex. C-3. 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. No doubt in the prayer clause, the complainant has requested for maturity amount of Rs. 2,81,000/-. However, this Commission is of the view that complainant is entitled to Rs. 3,22,307/- i.e. maturity value as per Ex. C-3. 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.3,22,307/-, maturity value of FDR's which matured on 2.6.2021. As opposite parties have delayed the payment, the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on amount of Rs. 3,22,307/- from 2.06.2021 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 President (Lalit Mohan Dogra) (Shivdev Singh) Member | |
