DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                    Complaint No.154

 Instituted on:   04.02.2022

                                                                   Decided on:     08.06.2023

Sakuntla aged 61 years wife of Sh. Suraj Singh R/O Village Ballian, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Office Sangrur now merged and shifted to Branch office: Patiala at Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corp, Patiala, through its Branch Manager 147001.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024 through its MD/GM.  

             ….Opposite parties. 

For complainant                : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.              

For  OPs                                  : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

Quorum                                          

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG,                                 : MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH            : MEMBER

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission who was allured to invest in a scheme floated by the OPs vide which complainant was supposed to deposit a sum of Rs.300/- per month for 60 months in a row following which OPs were to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.23,310/-. Trusting this assurance, the complainant opened in account bearing number 63075100091 on 23.01.2014 and an amount of Rs.18,000/- in total was deposited. Further it is averred that the complainant approached the OPs to refund the above said amount on its maturity, but even after expiry of the same the amount was not paid. Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then the complainant was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release the  amount of Rs.23,310/- along with interest and also for Rs.30,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, pain and  harassment and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared and filed power of attorney, but did not file any written reply, as such, defence of OPs was struck off by order of this Commission dated 6.7.2022 as the OPs neither paid the costs nor filed any written reply.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook and Ex.C-3 copy of aadhar card and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that his client availed services of the OPs by opening a recurring deposit and was supposed to deposit an amount of Rs.300/- per month for 60 months. Further it was also argued that after the lapse of the expiry date, the complainant approached the Ops with a request to release the maturity amount but some how or the other latter did not accede thereto thereby compelling to approach this Forum/Commission.

6.             On the other hand, record shows that the OPs did not file any written reply nor produced any evidence to rebut the contention of the complainant.

7.             Admittedly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.12,900/- with the OPs in instalments, which  is  evident   from   the copy of passbook Ex.C-2 on record.  However, there is variance between the parties so far as the status of the complainant is concerned as complainant alleges herself to be a consumer vis-à-vis OPs which can well termed to be service provider whereas latter has alleged themselves to be a society and the complainant being a member thereof should have approached the Arbitrator in case of any dispute  to resolve this controversy. If we look into the file, Ops have not placed any document on record which could indicate that the complainant at any point of time approached the Ops with a specific request to acquire its membership and then had invested with it.  In the same context, going a step ahead there is absolutely no material which could show that any such resolution was adopted by various officials of the OPs or if complainant was ever made to write her signatures on any such application form for becoming member thereof.  On the contrary, the correct photocopy of the passbook relied upon by the complainant palpably go to show that in fact the disputed amount of Rs.12,900/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs.  Now the Ops have not released the so deposited amount of Rs.12,900/- to the complainant which tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part.

8.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,900/-   along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. We also direct them to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.1000/- as 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.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases

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

                                Pronounced.

                                June 8, 2023.

               (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member           Member                    President