Delhi

North East

CC/290/2022

Seema Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

12 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. 290/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Seema Aggarwal W/o Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal 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:   DATE OF ORDE

13.07.22 24.01.24 12.03.24

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

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 her to deposit amount in various policies. It is stated that the complainant could not understand the policies of Opposite Party and  deposited amount in various policies only as per the direction of Opposite Party.  The details of the policies are 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
	FD	18027800719	31.08.19	28.02.21	20,000/-	24,902/-
	FD	18027800718	31.08.19	28.02.21	20,000/-	24,903/-
	FD	18027800720	31.08.19	28.02.21	21,000/-	26,148/-

4. It is stated that after completion of time of policy, Complainant requested Opposite Party to return her amount but Opposite Party made false promises to pay the amount later. It is stated that even after one and half year Opposite Party has 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. 75,953/- with interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.   

Case of the Opposite Party

5. 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 her deposited amount with the Opposite Party is not correct hence denied and complainant must be put to strict proof of her 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 which was illegal. It is submitted that under the scheme no additional interest was payable over maturity amount and the Opposite Party society never refused or denied to make the payment. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

8. 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

9. 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 several opportunities.
10. The case of the Complainant is that on 31.08.19, the complainant deposited different amount in various policies only as per the direction of Opposite Party and Opposite Party issued three different fixed deposit certificates with respective receipts of the amount deposits to Complainant which were matured in on 03.02.2022. The grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated demands made, 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, the contention of the Opposite Party is that the complainant had not deposited any of the amounts claimed and she must be put to strict proof of her claims. It is also contended that under the scheme, no additional interest was payable over maturity amount while the complainant was illegally insisting for the interest on maturity amount and payment of maturity amount could not be done due to complainant’s insistence.
11. The perusal of record reveals that the complainant has filed photocopies of the subject certificates issued by the Opposite Party in support of her case which mentions the respective amount paid by the complainant and the respective matured amount assured by the Opposite Party which comes to Rs. 75,953/- in total. The complainant has also filed the respective receipts of the amount paid to the Opposite Party.  It is evident that the maturity amount was to be paid by the Opposite Party on maturity date i.e. 03.02.2022 for 3 certificates. The allegation of the complainant is that the Opposite Party has not paid the said matured amount till date.
12. 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 was illegal. It is submitted that under the scheme no additional interest was payable over maturity amount and the Opposite Party society never refused or denied to make the payment.
13.  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. The Opposite Party has questioned the subject certificates asking the commission to require the complainant to prove the same which implies that Opposite Party does not have something concrete to dispute the subject certificates.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and Opposite Party is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 75,953/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the maturity date i.e. 03.02.22 for 3 certificates till its recovery on submission of original certificates 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.
17. Order announced on 12.03.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)            Member

(Adarsh Nain)  Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President