Delhi

North East

CC/289/2022

Karan Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Co. Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 289/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Karan Aggarwal S/o Sh. RakeshAggarwal R/o   H.No. 1/4345, Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Sahara Credit Co. Society Ltd. Through Mr. D.K Tiwari 678, Ekta House, 2nd Floor, Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032   Head Office at:- Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:               JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:        DATEOFORDER:

13.07.22 29.01.24 13.03.24

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the agent of Opposite Party contacted Complainant and told him to deposit amount in policy.It is stated that the Complainant could not understand the policy of Opposite Party and deposited amount as per the direction of Opposite Party, in one policy.  The details of the policy is as under:-

S.No.	Name of Policy	Number of Policy	Date of Institution	Date of Maturity	Amount of Policy	Maturity Amount till 03.02.22
	Regular Deposit	18027200115	27.01.18	27.01.21	48,000/-	59,952/-

2. It is stated that after completion of time of policy Complainant requested Opposite Party to return his amount but Opposite Party make false promises to pay the amount later on. It is stated that even after one and half year of completion of period of scheme,Opposite Party did not paid the amount of Complainant. The Complainant made various efforts telephonically and also visited office of Opposite Party but all in vain. The Complainant sent legal notice through his counsel to the Opposite Party on dated 07.02.22 through regd. speed post and again sent the reminder of the said notice through his counsel on dated 23.02.22 to the Opposite Party but Opposite Party had not paid any heed. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the maturity amount of Rs. 59,912/- with interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party

3. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that the Complainant is not consumer on the ground that Opposite Party is a Society and the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the activities of the society do not fall within the definition of service under consumer Act and the Complainant being member of said society has to follow the guidelines of the society. On merits, it is contended by the Opposite Party that the details given by the Complainant about his deposited amount with the Opposite Party is not correct hence denied and Complainant must be put to strict proof of his claims and the Complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is also alleged that the payment of maturity amount could not be done due to Complainant’s insistence for the interest on maturity amount.It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Party

4. The Complainant filedrejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Partywherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Partyand has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh,S.J.W with Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party has been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The Opposite Party neither filed the written arguments nor did they address the arguments orally despite having afforded several opportunities.
8. The case of the Complainant is that on 27.01.18, the Complainantdeposited an amount of Rs.48,000/- in one policyas Regular deposit only as per the direction of Opposite Party and Opposite Party issued  a policy number with some documents. The maturity amount under the policy was Rs. 59,952/-to be matured on 27.01.2021. The grievance of the Complainant is that even after one year of completion period, the Opposite Party Company did not release any of the maturity amount. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. On the other hand, Complainant must be put to strict proof of his claims by way of original documents and positive steps for payment of maturity amount could not be taken as the Complainant was insisting for the interest on maturity amount.
9. The Complainant has filed photocopy of the passbook and computer generated member ledger statement issued by the Opposite Party in support of his case. The perusal of copy of passbook and ledger statement shows that the Complainant has paid Rs. 48,000/- to the Opposite Party and as per the statement, the maturity date was 27.01.2021. Though, it is evident that the maturity amount was to be paid by the Opposite Party on maturity date i.e. 27.01.2021, the maturity amount is not mentioned anywhere and same remains to be proved. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has not paid the said matured amount till date. The opposite party has contended that the claim of the Complainant is not correct and he must be put to strict proof of the same. On the other hand, the main defence of the Opposite Party is that the payment of maturity amount could not be done due to Complainant’s insistence for the interest on maturity amount which shows that maturity amount was due upon the Opposite Party and the same was not paid.
10. Further, we find that Opposite Party has not filed any supporting documents as evidence in support of their contention nor have they filed any document showing that they offered the matured amount to the Complainant and same was declined by the Complainant. Therefore, the above contention cannot be believed.
11. It is to be noted that the Opposite Party has raised the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as per the provisions of the Co-operative Act and also there is not relationship of Consumer with the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party has not led any evidence in support of their case.
12. It is further noted that the Complainant has admitted in his rejoinder that the Complainant is in possession of original passbook and payment receipts issued by Opposite Party.
13. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party has been deficient in services by not providing the satisfactory services to the Complainant.As the Complainant has only been able to prove the amount deposited and the maturity date, the maturity amount as claimed remains to be proved. Therefore, only the amount deposited is allowed.
14. Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party is directed to pay  to the Complainant the deposited amount i.e.Rs. 48,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the maturity date i.e. 27.01.2021 till its recovery on submission of original documents by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 15,000 /- to the Complainant on account of litigation expenses and harassment along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
15. Order announced on 13.03.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President