Haryana

Karnal

CC/123/2020

Meena Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vishal Goel

02 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 123 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.26.02.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 02.11.2022

 

Meena Garg wife of Shri Rakesh Garg, resident of house no.1668-B, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Regd. office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (UP) through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Sahara India Priwar, opposite Onida Showroom, near Chandrechal Banquet Hall, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its BranchManager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

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

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

       

 Argued by: Shri Vishal Goel, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Vikas Yadav counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (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 parties (hereinafter referred as to ‘OPs’) on the averments that the authorized representative of OPs contacted complainant and told about the best scheme launched by the OPs and told about the goodwill of the OP no.1 and assured that the OPs will give handsome interest on the deposits and also assured that on maturity, they will return the deposit amount alongwith interest well in time.  On 10.04.2012 the complainant opened an R.D. account bearing no.22004202253, membership no.22001201513 with the OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- half yearly for a period of 60 months, which was matured on 09.04.2017. The complainant paid the entire monthly installments to the OPs without any delay by paying the amount from his hard earned money. After that, complainant approached and requested OP no.2 to make the maturity amount to him and told that the maturity amount will be released by registered office and the complainant will get the amount with upto date interest. However, till date OPs have not released outstanding amount alongwith interest to the complainant and the complainant has been running from pillar to post but the OPs have turned a deaf ear and did not bother to make the payment of abovesaid R.D. account alongwith interest to the complainant. It is further pleaded that on 17.02.2018, complainant again approached the OP no.2 for her matured amount, then official of the OPs told the complainant to fulfill the claim form and to submit copy of her R.D. account and told the complainant that she will get an amount of Rs.1,89,128/- as maturity amount and issued acknowledgement to the complainant in lieu of receipt of claim form as well as RD passbook. OPs had given the date of 28.02.2018 to the complainant for receiving the cheque of matured amount but on that date the payment was not made by the OP no.2. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.2 several times and requested to release the maturity amount but neither the matured amount was paid nor the OP no.2 returned the RD passbook of the complainant and now complainant is only having acknowledgement regarding the claim form and incomplete ledger account issued by the OP no.2. The complainant has enquired from the OPs and now the maturity value of RD is of Rs.2,06,322/-  In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the OPs are a society and only the Registrar of Cooperative Society has got jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant approached the OPs and invested her money after understanding/admitting the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is admitted that complainant paid the entire monthly installments tot he OPs without any delay. It is further pleaded that complainant never approached in the office of the OPs for the refund of the maturity amount as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application/claim form Ex.C1, copy of ledger statement Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 27.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5                On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Sinha, Manager Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 19.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             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.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had opened a R.D. account and deposited Rs.12,000/- half yearly for the period of 60 months, w.e.f. 10.04.2012 to 27.10.2016 but OPs failed to release the said amount to the complainant after maturity of the same and prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the OPs are a Society and only the Registrar of Cooperative Society has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. He further argued that complainant never approached in the office of the OPs for the refund of the maturity amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned counsel for OPs relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Versus The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. NCDRC759 of 2013 (4).

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

10.           The OPs have taken a plea that OPs are 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 OPs have not placed on record any arbitration agreement or any document that OPs are 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 OPs are a society and there exists an arbitration agreement between the OPs 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.”  

11.           Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment, the plea taken by the OPs has no force. Thus, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

12.           The next question for consideration before us is that whether the complainant has ever approached to the OPs for getting her maturity amount of the aforesaid R.D. account or not?    

13.           It is an admitted fact that complainant had deposited his savings with the OPs in the R.D. Account. To prove her version, complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application/claim form Ex.C1 and copy of ledger statement Ex.C2. It is evident from the ledger statement Ex.C2, complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the shape of Rs.12000/- half yearly installments for the period of 60 months  and the same is refundable on its maturity i.e. on 09.04.2017 but same has not been refunded to the complainant till date.

 14.          The dispute before this Commission is that why OPs have not released the maturity value of the RD to the complainant. Learned counsel for OPs has taken a plea that since the assets of the OPs have been stayed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. He further submitted that the matter is also pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Admittedly, Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stayed the recovery from the OPs. Reasons above the OPs are unable to make the payment belonging to complainant but OPs have not even placed on record any document in order to support its version. Furthermore, the OPs failed to prove the reasons behind for withholding the maturity amount of the complainant. It is not the case of the OPs that they have made payment of the maturity amount of the RD to the complainant or that they have ever made any offer to the complainant to receive payment. In support of his version OPs have only placed on record the affidavit of Sunil Sinha Manager Ex.OP1/A.  Thus, OPs have failed to rebut the version of the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

15.           In view of the matter, credence can be given to that documents and the complainant is held entitled to maturity amount. Needless to mention here, the complainant did not avail any kind of services of the OPs and have also not taken cash back, therefore, she is certainly and definitely entitled to the deposited amount as above. Hence, the act of the OPs for non-honoring their own scheme and by non-explaining of the terms and conditions thereof to the complainant, proves deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which not only resulted in the unnecessary litigation, but has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the complainant. The act of non-payment of the amount of RD after the date of maturity by the OPs 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.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the maturity amount of the RD account to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay interest @ 9% on the maturity value of the abovesaid RD account from 09.04.2017 (i.e. date of maturity) till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- 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: 02.11.2022

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member                  Member