Haryana

Karnal

CC/693/2019

Lakhpat Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jagoish Kashyap

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                            Complaint No.693 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt. 09.10.2019

                                                        Date of decision 27.08.2021

 

Lakhpat Rai son of late Shri Punna Ram, resident of near Shiv Mandir, Rasulpur Khurd, District Karnal. (Aadhaar no.5232 4271 2236)

 

        …….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its branch office at Kunjpura Road, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

 …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

               

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

 

 Present: Shri Jagdish Kashyap, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Vikas Yadav, counsel for opposite party.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

                 

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant invested money with the OP and qua which the OP has issued six FDRs to the complainant, the details of which are as under:-

Sr.       FDR                Date of           Principal            Maturity           Maturity

No.       no.                 purchase          amount             date                  value

 

1. 22003700649      30.04.2011                  Rs.50000/-      30.04.2019      Rs.121600/-          

2. 22003700650      30.04.2011                  Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019     Rs.121600/-          

3. 22003700651      30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-               30.04.2019     Rs.121600/-           

4.  22003700652     30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019    Rs.121600/-          

5.  22003700653     30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019    Rs.121600/-          

6.   22003700654    30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019    Rs.121600/-          

At the time of issuance of abovesaid FDRs, the OP assured that on maturity, entire principle and interest amount alongwith other benefits will be given to the complainant. After the maturity of the FDRs, complainant visited the office of OP for getting refund of the said amount. The official of the OP asked the complainant to deposit the original documents and then they will send the matter to the Higher Authorities for approval and after that the payment of said FDRs will be made to the complainant. Complainant deposited the original FDRs and other documents in the office of OP on 14.06.2019, which was duly received by the official concerned and issued receipt thereof to the complainant. Thereafter, after fifteen days, complainant visited the office of OP so many times for getting payment of his FDRs but same was not released by OP and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other but OP has not made the payment of the FDRs to the complainant. Such act and conduct on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service, which caused mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections, with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; concealment of true and material facts and territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as the OP is a society and only the Registrar of Cooperative Society has got jurisdiction to entertain, try and decided the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted fact that complainant had invested money with the OP and qua which the OP had issued six FDRs. It is denied that after the maturity of the said FDRs, complainant visited the office of OP for getting refund of the said amount and official concerned asked the complainant to deposit original documents with their office and then they will send the matter to the Higher Authorities for approval and after approval the payment of the said FDRs would be made to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of FD account no.22003700649 Ex.C1 dated 30.04.2011, copy of FD account no.22003700650 Ex.C2 dated 30.04.2011, copy of FD account no.22003700651 Ex.C3 dated 30.04.2011, copy of FD account no.22003700652 Ex.C4 dated 30.04.2011, copy of FD account no.22003700653 Ex.C5 dated 30.04.2011, copy of FD account no.22003700654 Ex.C6 dated 30.04.2011, acknowledgement slip dated 14.06.2019 Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 12.03.2020 by suffering separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sunil Sinha, Manager Sahara India Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 03.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with the OP in the shape of six FDRs and on maturity it becomes Rs.7,29,600/- i.e. Rs.1,21,600/- of each FDR, but OP failed to release the FDRs amount to the complainant after maturity of the same, hence prayed for allowing the complaint.

7.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with the OP in the shape of six FDRs i.e. each FDR of Rs.50,000/- and on maturity i.e. on 30.04.2019, it become Rs.7,29,600/- i.e. Rs.1,21,600/- of each FDR. He further argued that OP was/is ready to pay the amount of the complainant but the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has stayed the assets of the OP-company, therefore, OP is unable to pay the amount belonging to complainant till the vacation of stay. He further argued that complainant never visited the office of OP for getting refund of amount of abovesaid FDRs. He further argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the OP is a Society and only the Registrar of Cooperative Society has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             The first question for consideration before us is that whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

9.             The OP has taken a plea that OP is a society and there exists an arbitration agreement between the society and the complainant, therefore, the dispute is to be entertained before Arbitrator as per arbitration agreement under clause 18 of the scheme Super AB.  In this regard, we are of the considered view that the OP has not placed on record any arbitration agreement or any document that OP is a society. Therefore, this plea is not tenable in the eyes of law.  Furthermore, if for the sake of argument it may be considered that OP is a society and there exists an arbitration agreement between the OP and the complainant, in that case also this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as it is a settled proposition of law that complaint under Consumer Protection Act, being an additional remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement, the proceedings before Consumer Commission have to go on. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. In this regard, we place reliance on the case titled “M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Versus Aftab Singh, review petition © Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.55 as under:-

“We may, however, hasten to add that in the event a person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes being proceeded in arbitration. It is only the case where specific/special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to the arbitration.”  

10.           Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and ratio of the judgment, the plea taken by the OP has no force. Thus, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

11.           The next question for consideration before us is that whether the complainant has ever approached to the OP for getting his maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs or not?

12.           It is evident from the acknowledgement receipt Ex.C7 dated 14.06.2019 that the official of OP has received the original FDRs from the complainant for withdrawal of contribution and complainant has approached to the OP for getting the maturity amount of FDRs. Thus, the plea taken by the OP has no force.

13.           It is an admitted fact that complainant had deposited his savings with the OP in the shape of six FDRs. Details of which are as under:-

Sr.       FDR                Date of           Principal            Maturity           Maturity

No.       no.                 purchase          amount             date                   value

 

1. 22003700649      30.04.2011                  Rs.50000/-      30.04.2019      Rs.121600/-          

2. 22003700650      30.04.2011                  Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019     Rs.121600/-          

3. 22003700651      30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-               30.04.2019     Rs.121600/-           

4.  22003700652     30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019    Rs.121600/-          

5.  22003700653     30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019    Rs.121600/-          

6.   22003700654    30.04.2011                   Rs.50000/-       30.04.2019    Rs.121600/-          

                To prove his version, complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. The dispute before this Commission is that why OP has not released the maturity value of the FDRs to the complainant. Learned counsel for OP has taken a plea that since the assets of the OP has been stayed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, therefore, the OP is unable to make the payment belonging to complainant but OP has not even placed on record any document in order to support its version. Furthermore, the OP has not proved that for what reason they withheld the maturity amount of the complainant. It is not the case of the OP that they have made payment of the maturity amount of the FDRs to the complainant or that they have ever made any offer to the complainant to receive payment. In support of his version OP only placed on record affidavit of Sunil Sinha Manager Ex.OP1/A.  Thus, OP has failed to rebut the version of the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Non-payment of the amount of FDRs after the date of maturity by the OP to the complainant is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant is entitled for the maturity amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the maturity amount of  Rs.7,29,600/- (i.e.Rs.1,21,600x6) of the aforesaid FDRs to the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay interest @ 9% on the maturity value of the abovesaid FDRs from 30.04.2019 (i.e. date of maturity) till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:27.08.2021                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)          

                     Member