| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.15 of 11.01.2022 Decided on : 06-06-2023 Ravinder Kumar Bansal aged about 70 years S/o Sh. Dev Raj Bansal R/o H. No. MCB -Z1/8692, Street Sucha Singh, Near Mehna Chowk, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan,1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Branch Office, Near Silver Star Hotel, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda- 151001 through its Branch Manager/Chief Manager.
.......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. Sham Lal Goyal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. R.K Duggal, Advocate. ORDER Shivdev Singh Member The complainant Ravinder Kumar (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 are engaged in the financial activities of accepting deposits from its members and general public. Accordingly, complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 70,474/- on 07.07.2012 with the opposite parties at Bathinda in the shape of FDRs for 8 years (96 months) vide FDR no. 351003229240, Receipt No. 80186335620 and membership no. 27001100867, having maturity date 07.07.2020 and maturity value of Rs. 1,84,078/-. The said FDR became matured on 07.07.2020 and after maturity of the FDR, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to disburse the maturity amount of FDR, but the opposite parties kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and failed to disburse any amount to the complainant till date. It is also alleged that the complainant several times requested the opposite parties to release the maturity amount of the FDR i.e. Rs. 1,84,078/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. till its realization, but instead of accepting the request of the complainant, the opposite parties threatened the complainant of commit arbitrariness towards the complainant. The complainant got served the Regd. legal notice but the opposite parties did not give any response in this respect. Hence this complaint. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay maturity amount of Rs.184,078/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. and compensation to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of mental agony and pains besides Rs.10,000/- 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 consumer. 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. 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 Coopwerative society Limited. On merits, opposite parties have pleaded that they never made resquest to reinvest the amount. The complainant himself approached the office of 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. In further reply, the opposite parties have replied that the version/pleadings of the complainant are matter of record. It has been pleaded that 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. It is submitted that under Sahara credit society scheme, there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. The complainant has made false and baseless statement. 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 7.1.2022 (Ex.C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-12). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Krishan Chander dated 24.4.2023 (Ex. OP-1/1) and closed the evidence. 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. This version is only afterthought version 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 was to mature on 7.7.2020. A perusal of Ex. C-1 supports and proves the version of the complainant. The complainant has asserted that opposite parties have failed to refund the 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.1,84,078/-, maturity value of FDR (Ex. C-1) which matured on 7.7.2020. As opposite parties have delayed the payment, the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on amount of Rs.1,84,078/- from 7.7.2020 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:- 06-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
