Punjab

Sangrur

CC/107/2021

Gurjashan Singh Pannu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Amit Aggarwal

23 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 107

 Instituted on:   25.01.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     23.11.2021

 

Gurjashan Singh Pannu son of S. Harjit Singh Pannu, resident of H.No.465, Khalifa Bagh, Opp. Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024 through its President.

2.       Sahara India Parivar, Area Office: SCO 84-A, IInd Floor, Phase-V, Shahi Majra, Banongi Road, Near AM Hospital, Sector-58, Mohali 160062 through its Manager.

3.     Raj Kumar Garg, Franchisee Manager, Sahara India Parivar at 4 Khamba Market, Near Binny Sound, Bhawanigarh 148026.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.              

For the OPs               : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                  Shri Udit Goyal, Advocates.

 

Quorum                                           

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER BY:     

S.P.Sood, President.

1.             Complainant Gurjashan Singh Pannu has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by investing a total sum of Rs.2,64,000/- vide policy/Fixed Deposit acknowledged by the OPs by issuing    FDR    certificate    bearing   number 925-003765262 to 925-003765267 with maturity amount of Rs.3,07,032/- after 30.12.2018. Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, he approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then he was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.3,07,032/- along with interest and also for Rs.30,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience meted out to him and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared through Advocate Shri Sanjeev Goyal and filed written response raising preliminary objection regarding status  of the complainant being a consumer and also explained as to how their’s is a society and it was only on the specific request of the complainant that he was inducted as a member thereof, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant to bring this dispute before the Consumer Forum/Commission instead of approaching the Arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause.

3.             Besides the above said legal objection, OPs have also averred that it is only member of the society who can avail its benefit and, therefore, after having well understood various rules, regulations, byelaws and objectives of the society the complainant became a member and thereafter  invested a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- in the shape of fixed deposit for 18 months.  After expiry of the said period the complainant never approached concerned officials of the OPs, as such it was not possible for the latter to release the maturity amount.  That being so, complainant could not allege himself to be a consumer of the OPs as there is no subsistence of relationship of consumer and that of the service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  So, the complainant cannot legally seek any such relief under the Consumer Protection Act, so his complaint deserves dismissal.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that his client availed services of the OPs by investing a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- vide policy/Fixed Deposit bearing number 925-003765262 to 925-003765267. Further it was also argued that after the lapse of the expiry date, the complainant approached the Ops with a request to release the maturity amount but some how or the other latter did not accede thereto thereby compelling to approach this Forum/Commission.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant is not a consumer, therefore, his grievance cannot be heard sympathetically in this Forum/Commission. Fact of the matter is that the OPs happens to be a society and the complainant became its member and thereafter invested some amount in one of its schemes as such now if there is any sort of dispute between the complainant and the OPs then only option open to the complainant was to approach the arbitrator and seek his indulgence instead of rushing to this Commission, so the present complaint should be thrown out.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,64,000/-  with the OPs vide FDR/receipt correct photocopies of which have been produced on record as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13 and the maturity value of the invested sum happens to be Rs.3,07,032/- after 30.12.2018.  However, there is variance between the parties so far as the status of the complainant is concerned as complainant alleges himself to be a consumer vis-à-vis OPs which can well termed to be service provider whereas latter has alleged themselves to be a society and the complainant being a member thereof should have approached the Arbitrator in case of any dispute  to resolve this controversy. If we look into the file, Ops have not placed any document on record which could indicate that the complainant at any point of time approached the Ops with a specific request to acquire its membership and then had invested with it.  In the same context, going a step ahead there is absolutely no material which could show that any such resolution was adopted by various officials of the OPs or if complainant was ever made to write his signatures on any such application form for becoming member thereof.  Ex.OP-2 is simply a printed form with all its columns lying blank could hardly be pressed into service to fortify the contention of the OPs. Even a sole and definite stand adopted by OPs in this regard vide a separate application also stood repelled by this Forum/Commission. On the contrary, the correct photocopy of the receipts relied upon by the complainant palpably go to show that in fact the disputed amount of Rs.2,64,000/- was invested by the complainant with concerned officials of the OPs having assured him to repay the maturity value of Rs.3,07,032/- after 30.12.2018 could not be shattered.  Now the Ops have not released the maturity value which tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part.

9.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,07,032/- along  with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of maturity till realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                November 23, 2021.

 

            (Sarita Garg) (Vinod Kumar Gulati)        (S.P. Sood)

                   Member           Member                     President