Punjab

Sangrur

CC/482/2018

Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Mahesh Kumar Satija

06 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR 

                                                                        Complaint No. 482

 Instituted on:   21.11.2018

                                                                        Decided on:     06.12.2019

 

Deepak Kumar aged about 33 years son of Rakesh Kumar R/O H.No.496, Sunami Gate, Sangrur Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sunami Gate Phirni, Near Ganga Ram Chawla House, Sangrur through its Branch Manager. 

2.        Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through its Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties. 

Counsel for the complainant: Shri M.K.Satija, Adv.              

Counsel for the OPs            : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Ms. Vandana Sidhu, Member

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER BY:     

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

1.             The complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties  by opening a recurring deposit account bearing number 63074800047 on 28.01.2013 with the maturity date as 30.12.2017 whereby the complainant had to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- per month for 60 months and on its maturity the Ops were liable to pay an amount of Rs.73,914/-.  As such, the complainant opened the account and deposited the instalments of Rs.60,000/- with the OPs. Further case of the complainant is that on maturity the complainant requested the Ops to release the maturity amount but the amount was not paid despite approaching the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops,  the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to release the amount of Rs.73,914/- along with interest and to pay Rs.13,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and an amount of Rs.12,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite parties appeared through Advocate Shri Udit Goyal and filed written version. In written version preliminary objections are taken that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties and that  if the complainant is a member of the society and has any grievance or dispute with the society, the complainant is bound to refer her dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration agreement under clause.

3.             On merits, it is submitted that after maturity the complainant did not approach the office immediately rather he approached after considerable delay and demanded payment of additional interest for delayed period also. The complainant’s demand of additional interest was against the terms and conditions of the clause 5, as such the complainant was not entitled to get additional interest. 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. The opposite parties have produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties by opening an account bearing number 63074800047 on 28.1.2013 whereby the complainant had to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- per month for 60 months and on its maturity the Ops were liable to pay an amount of Rs.73,914/-.  As such, the complainant opened the account and deposited 60 instalments of Rs.1000/- each total  Rs.60,000/-. Further case of the complainant is that on maturity the complainant requested to release the maturity amount but the amount was not paid despite approaching the Ops, as such it is stated that the Ops are deficient in rendering service to the complainant. On the other hand, the Ops have admitted the deposit of the amount of Rs.60,000/- by the complainant but the amount was not paid as the complainant was demanding additional rate of interest upon the deposited amount on delayed payment that’s why the said payment could not be made to the complainant.

7.             It is proved on record that the complainant deposited with the opposite parties a total amount of Rs.60,000/- vide copy of passbook Ex.C-2 but the opposite parties failed to pay the due maturity amount along with interest.  Though the stand of the opposite parties is that the amount could not be paid due to enhance demand of amount with additional interest by the complainant but we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay the deposited amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant. As such,  the opposite parties are deficient in service by not paying the requisite amount to the complainant.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.  It is further directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.4000/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

 

                        December 6, 2019.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

          Member                   Member                  President