DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,SANGRUR.

                                                          Complaint No. 198

                                                          Instituted on:   08.05.2019

                                                          Decided on:     04.01.2021

Rajwant Kaur wife of Dhan Ram resident of Bagrol, Kamalpur, District Sangrur, Mobile No.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Franchise Gaurdian of Sahara India Pariwar through its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Chaar Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Franchise Gaurdian of Sahara India Pariwar through its Branch Manager, H.O.Sethi Complex, Opp. Polo Ground, Near Modi College Chowk Lower Mall 3rd Floor, Patiala-147001.

3.     Sahara Credit Cooperatvive Society Ltd. through its Managing Director Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1,Kapoorthla Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow -226024.Regd. No.MSCS/CR/333 /2010

          ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Vidya Sagar, Advocate                           

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :             Shri Udit Goyal,Adv.         

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Rajwant Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she availed the services of the OPs by investing a total amount of Rs.150000/- vide two  FDRs  on 10.06.2016. The date of maturity of the said FDRs was 10.12.2017 and maturity value of the FDRs is Rs.1,74,450/-. After due date of said FDRs the complainant requested the OP no.1 number of times for making the maturity amount of said FDRs but OP No.1 did not do anything.  The complainant also approached the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount but they failed to do so. 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.1,74,450/- 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.             In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is a member of the society and if any member of the society has any grievance then he should go to the arbitrator for arbitration. On merits, it is stated that the complainant being the member of the society vide membership number 56151600100 had chosen to invest amount in Sahara A Plan  in the shape of  FDRs at Franchise office Bhawanigarh of Society. It is further submitted that the maturity value of accounts was as per the terms and conditions of scheme. The complainant demanded additional interest after date of maturity but no additional interest is payable to the complainant after the date of maturity. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

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

4.             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.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties investing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- vide two FDRs which were issued by the OPs in favour of the complainant. Further it is contended that the complainant approached the OPs and requested OP number 1 to release the maturity amount of the FDRs, 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 amount by the complainant but the maturity amount was not paid.  It is contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs nor this is a consumer dispute, as such the learned counsel for the OPs have contended that this complaint should be dismissed. But we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs. 

6.             It is proved on record that the complainant deposited with the opposite parties a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6  and the maturity amount payable to the complainant was to the tune of Rs.1,74,450/- but the opposite parties failed to pay the due maturity amount along with interest.  Though the stand of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not a consumer but we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.1,74,450/-. As such,  the opposite parties are deficient in service by not paying the requisite amount to the complainant.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,74,450/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization.  It is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of 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.

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

                        Announced.

                        January 4, 2021

                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)                (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                         Member                                 President