Punjab

Sangrur

CC/69/2019

Nayab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.G.S.Shergill

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 69

 Instituted on:   18.02.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     28.11.2019

 

Nayab Singh alias Naib Singh son of Jagar Singh, resident of Village Nadampur, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through its Managing Director 226 024.

2.        Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Office; Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager 148 026.

             ….Opposite parties. 

Counsel for the complainant: Shri G.S.Shergill, 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 in the month of May, 2016 by investing an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- vide different policies/FDRs vide number 925-002430636 of R.20,000/- and FDRs number 925-002430637 to 925-002430642 of Rs.25,000/- each in favour of the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the Ops in the month of December, 2018 and requested OP number 2 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 FDRs i.e. Rs.1,97,710/- along with interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and an amount of Rs.22,000/- 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 taking preliminary objections 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 only a member of society can avail the benefits of society and the complainant after understanding the bye-laws and objects of the society had become member and being a member of society with membership number 56151600092 and invested an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in total  on 31.05.2016 for 18 months. It is stated that the complainant was demanding additional rate of interest upon the deposited amount on delay payment that’s why the said payment could not be made to the complainant. 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. The opposite parties have produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 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 in the month of May, 2016 by investing an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- vide different policies/FDRs vide number 925-002430636 of R.20,000/- and FDRs number 925-002430637 to 925-002430642 of Rs.25,000/- each in favour of the complainant. Further it is contended that the complainant approached the Ops in the month of December 2018 and requested OP number 2 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.1,70,000/- by the complainant but the amount was not paid as the complainant was demanding additional rate of interest upon the deposited amount on delay 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.1,70,000/- vide receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 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 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.1,70,000/-. 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.1,70,000/- 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 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.

 

                        November 28, 2019.

 

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

          Member                   Member                  President