Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/358/2022

Dev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/358/2022
Date of Institution	:	24/04/2022
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2023

 

Dev singh S/o Gyan Singh 81, Mavaimokhari Mawai, Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh 285001.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024 through its Managing Director.
2. The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited,  Sahara Parivar, SCO No. 541, 2^nd floor, Gali No.5, Keshoram Complex, Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

Second Address: Sahara India SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

Third Address: Sahara India Parivar, SCO 84/A, Shahi Mazra, Balongi road Mohali, Punjab.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ajay Singh Parmar vice counsel for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.     The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Dev Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OP-1 company had floated various schemes and invited public at large to invest amount in the schemes whereby lucrative incentives and interest was offered and on the assurance of the OPs, complainant had invested hard earned money in various  scheme floated by OPs  by depositing a total sum of Rs. 2,0,7000/- in the recurring deposit scheme having maturity date of 30.4.2020. However, the complainant deposited the money only uptill 13.11.2019 under the recurring deposit and did not further deposit the money because after deposit of the installment in 2019 it came to notice of the complainant that Opposite Party company has no intention to pay the maturity value and further that they duped thousands of investors.  The complainant approached the OPs for refund of deposited amount alongwith interest accrued uptill date.  However, despite repeated requests, OPs had not released the aforesaid amount and in this manner the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.  Thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice to the OPs on 19.03.2022, but, the same was not responded by them. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, suppression of facts, jurisdiction and also that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as complainant was a member of the Society, hence the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, stated that the complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the society had availed the membership and deposited the amount. It is denied that OPs had assured the complainant that he will get any benefit or that the company will pay interest on the delay of payment. It is averred that the complainant should approach the appropriate authority i.e. Central Registrar against any grievances or should apply under arbitration clause. Even this Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  It is denied that the OPs have caused any loss or harassment to the complainant or that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2.     In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is the admitted case of the parties that complainant had deposited an amount of ₹2,0,7000/- with the OPs in the shape of recurring deposit as is evident from
      Annexure C-1   the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest from the OPs, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, deserves dismissal, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2.     Annexure C-1 is the copy of Ledger Statement issued by the OPs as per which complainant had deposited an amount of ₹3000/- per month with the OPs from 30.4.2014 till 13.11.2019 totaling to ₹2,07,000/-. Admittedly, the complainant had not continuously deposited the installments, but the amount deposited by him to the tune of ₹2,07,000/-  has not been returned by the OPs to the complainant till date. Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainant deposited Rs.2,07,000/- under the aforesaid scheme. It is an admitted case of the parties that the amount has not been returned to the complainant by the OPs till date despite of fact that the Opposite Party have no right to retain the same after the date of maturity and further that  the complainant had deposited the amount after being allured of goods returns. It is clear on record that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the said amount alongwith interest and compensation.
   3.     The OPs resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer since as per case of the complainant he has invested the amount in question and he is not entitled for any relief from this Commission.  On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case title Kiran Krishana Agro Tech Ltd. Vs. Smt P.V. Shantha Kumari in revision No.4229 of 2007 decided on 26.4.2012 in which it was held that:

“where the petitioner has failed to pay the  maturity value of FDRs, the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part”.In the case in hand it is also the case of the complainant that the OPs failed to pay maturity  value of the fixed deposit made by the complainant with the OPs. Thus, the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.”

4.     In the case in hand it is also the case of the complainant that the OPs failed to pay maturity  value of the fixed deposit made by the complainant with the OPs. Thus, the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part
5.     The OPs have resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint as per Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and also on account of bar under the Arbitration Act.  So far as the defence of the OPs that the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under the 2002 Act is concerned, the same is without merit as the complainant has been claiming the amount, whatever was deposited by him with the OPs, which has also not been disputed by the OPs. 
6.     Similarly, the provisions of Arbitration Act do not affect the jurisdiction of this Commission as it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftaab, 2018 Online SCC 2378 that consumer disputes are non arbitrable.
7.     As far as the defence of the OPs that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and the complainant should approach the Central Registrar as this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint and also that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act is concerned, the same is also not tenable in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vs. Anil Kasliwal & 2 Ors., III (2022) CPJ 224 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1)(d), 21 (b) – Consumer – Fixed deposit – Deposit of money in a Fixed Deposit Account cannot be termed as “commercial transaction.” – Submission of petitioner that complainants are not “consumers” is rejected.”

 

2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the complainant has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and both the consumer complaints partly succeed, the same are hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the deposited amount of Rs. ₹2,07,000/-. to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of last deposit i.e. 13.11.2019 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

3. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
4. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 06/04/2023			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana