DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 88/2020

Date of Institution   : 18.03.2020

Date of Decision    : 22.02.2021

Sahil Mittal, aged about 34 years, son of Sh. Nagin Chand Mittal resident of # B-VII/2814, Municipal Committee Road, Street no. 6, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.      

                      …Complainant

Versus

 

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Registered Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director. 

2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Branch Office Barnala, now shifted at Sahara India Parivar Sethi Complex, 3rd Floor, Near Modi College Chowk, Opposite Apollo Ground, Patiala-147001,  through its Branch Manager. 

 

               …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties.

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Sahil Mittal has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has availed the services of opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant has invested a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash with the opposite party No. 2 at Barnala through 2 FDRs for 8 years (each) on 29.12.2011 and it was agreed with the opposite parties and the complainant that the opposite parties will handover a sum of Rs. 78,360/- to the complainant on 29.12.2019 and in this regard the opposite parties issued two FDRs. It is further alleged that according to the agreement and terms & conditions tried to submit the above said two original FDRs in the office of opposite party No. 2 for the release of above said amount of Rs. 78,360/- on 29.12.2019. But the opposite party No. 2 refused to receive the same and has verbally told to the complainant that he will receive the same after some days when the payment will be made to the complainant. After some days the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 for collecting the amount and depositing the above said two FDRs. It is further alleged that the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the payment will be made on the next month. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No. 2 but they linger on the matter on the one pretext or the other. Finally, the complainant served a legal notice dated 28.2.2020 to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties failed to give any reply. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) To pay the amount of Rs. 78,360/- as per the agreement alongwith interest.

2) To pay Rs. 15,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and invested the amount of Rs. 30,000/- in cash through Two FDRs at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the answering opposite parties was rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such, the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment, but she willfully refused to receive the same in part. So, due to this reason the above said payment could not have been made. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.  

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts  Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 28.1.2021 has made statement that he does not want to submit rejoinder on behalf of complainant and closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to tender any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 11.1.2021. 

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

7. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. He has further placed on record copies of receipt Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 which shows that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- each) has been invested in the Sahara E Shine on 29.12.2011. Further the copies of receipts Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 shows the account opening date mentioned as 29.12.2011. Further, the tenure of the scheme is mentioned as 96 months and the maturity date is mentioned as 29.12.2019. Further, in Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 the maturity amount is mentioned as Rs. 39,180/- each. He has further placed on record copy of legal notice Ex.C-4 dated 28.2.2020 and Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6 are the postal receipts. 

8. On the other hand, the opposite parties have failed to tender any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 11.1.2021. 

9. From perusal of the record it shows that the complainant has opted the above said scheme of the opposite parties and deposited a total amount of Rs. 30,000/- in the shape of two FDRs as claimed by the complainant in his complaint with the opposite parties. Further, from Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 it is proved that the above said scheme was for 96 months and on maturity the payment was to be given to the customer/complainant. It is important to mention here that to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence on record.   

10. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 78,360/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of its maturity i.e. 29.12.2019 till its realization. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.   

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       22nd Day of February, 2021 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President             

 

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member