DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.397 of 2018
Date of institution: 18.06.2018
Date of Decision: 28.04.2022
Suraj Parkash son of Krishan Lal, resident of House No.315/5, Luxmi Puri, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana
…….Complainant
Versus
- Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office, Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Luckhnow through its Director/M.D. Subooto Roy
- Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch At B-1/367, Guru Nanak Pura, Kailash Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. Ajay Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Adv. counsel for OPs
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Ludhiana, filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that in the first of January 2013, the agent of the OP1 and OP2 namely Bhushan Sharma son of Fakir Chand resident of House No.135, New Kartar Nagar, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana along with the officials of the Opposite parties approached the complainant and allured him that if the complainant will invest the amount with the OPs No.1 & 2 in the monthly scheme, then the opposite parties No1 & 2 will double the invested amount after five years along with other benefits and incentives. On the assurance of the agent of the Ops, the complainant started/investing his hard earned money with the opposite parties since 21.1.2013 till 21.1.2018, but the opposite parties issued the receipt only upto 20.09.2016 and thereafter the opposite parties failed to issue any receipt against the invested amount with them, despite the repeated request and demands of the complainant. It is further alleged that after completion of five years, the complainant time and again approached the opposite parties with a request to fulfill their promise and to return his invested amount along with all the benefits, incentives and interest, but the officials of the opposite parties always kept on dilly delaying the matter. On 21.5.2018, the complainant again approached the OP2 along with the agent and requested him to provide the complete detail regarding the actual invested amount along with its interest, benefits and incentives due towards him. Thereafter, the OP2 issued one balance confirmation slip of balance of Rs.83963/- due towards him and when the complainant requested to return his all the invested amount along with interest, benefits and incentives, then the officials of the opposite parties flatly refused to accept the most genuine request of the complainant and also misbehaved with the complainant.
4. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. to fail to return the amount of the complainant has sought the following relief:-
OPs be asked to pay Rs.83953/- along with interest and further sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the damages and losses suffered by the complainant with Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. In reply, initially Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Sector Manager of the Ops appeared but has chosen not to file any reply on behalf of OP No.1. The OP No.2 in its reply has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that it was the CC who contacted the Ops to become the member of the society and had obtained the membership of the society and CC is the member of the society and cannot term herself as the consumer of the society. Since he contributed her money in furtherance of the objects of the society. Even the maintainability of the present complaint before this commission is also challenged. It is alleged that the dispute is between the members of the society, therefore, in light of law laid down by various courts, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Only the Arbitrator as per the Arbitration Agreement can settle the dispute among the parties.
6. In para-wise reply, the OPs are averred that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OPs. Sahara Credit Cooprative Society Limited is duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2022 and the complainant is a member of the society. Thus, relation between the complainant and opposite parties is of member and society. Therefore, for any dispute between society and member, consumer complaint is not maintainable and is liable to dismiss the same with cost. It is further averred that only a member of society can avail the benefits of schemes of society, so the complainant had contracted the office of society to become member. The complainant after understanding the bye laws and objects of the society had become member and obtained membership. Being a member of society he had opened account with denomination of Rs.1500/- per month under Sahara M Benefit Scheme for 60 months at Sector office-Vivek Vihar of Society. Before opting this scheme the complainant duly understood the terms and conditions of scheme and then submitted signed application form to make investment for the furtherance of objections of the society. It is further averred that as per terms and conditions of the clause 5(1) of scheme the maturity amount of the complainants account is Rs.81793/- but the complainant has claimed excess amount of Rs.83963/- which has not deposited with the OPs that is why the same could not be paid. It is further alleged that there is no consumer dispute rather if any dispute exists the same is between the Society and its Member, which can be resolved under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant against the OPs have denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against the OPs.
7. The complainant in support of her claim tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CA reiterating the averments of the complaint. Further the complainant has submitted various receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 issued by the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited. However, another affidavit is filed by Smt. Sheela Sukla, as Ex.RA, reiterating the version of OPs No.1 & 2 in the affidavit.
10. After perusal of the complaint as well as the version of the OPs and the evidence on record, we feel that complainant has brought sufficient evidence on record to prove that the OPs floated a scheme to invest the money with five years plan. We have also perused Ex.C2 to Ex.C7, from the perusal of the receipts and account statement of the complainant submitted by him, it is crystal clear that the amount received by the Ops by issuance receipt wherein it is mentioned that the amount is received by Sahara Credit Cooperative Limited. It is important to mention here that in their reply, the OPs admitted the fact that as per terms and conditions of clause -5(1) of scheme the maturity amount of the complainant account is Rs.81,793/- but the complainant has claimed excess amount Rs.83963/- which has not deposited with the OPs. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has deposited Rs.81793/- with the OPs.
11. It is not the case where the complainant had took the membership of any society of the Ops as alleged in the version of the OPs. Rather the money invested by the complainant with the OPs. It is writ-large on the file that the complainant never opted directly and invested money in the scheme of OPs, rather on the assurance of the agent of the OPs, the complainant invested his money under compelling circumstances.
12. We feel that the Ops do not deserves any leniency by this Commission they have done a fraud, cheating and misrepresentationon the poor complainant and rather they are again trying to mislead the Commission and even trying to cheat the court of law by filing a reply which is based on surmises and conjectures. The Ops even have not denied the affidavit of the complainant in its reply. Ops have also not denied the statement of account and receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C8. It is not proved on file that complainant ever took any membership of any society of OPs as mentioned in the version. Rather, the averments of the complainant in the complaint appears to be cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring.
13. This is not a dispute between a society and its member. Rather, it is an act of is representation on behalf of the O.Ps who have deviated the funds of the complainant instead of returning the amount of the complainant immediately as promised by them. During the arguments, the advocate for the O.Ps. was not answering the question asked by this Commission time and again about the veracity of these statement of account and receipts.
14. In view of the discussion made above, it is ordered that the OPs. To pay Rs.81793/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum jointly and severally (Ops No.1 & 2) from the date of filing of this complaint. The OPs are further burdened to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with Rs.11000/- as litigation charges. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
April 28, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
-
RBT/CC No.397 of 2018
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
April,28 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranuir Kaur)
