Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/133/2019

Govind Raj Penwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/133/2019
Date of Institution	:	05/03/2019
Date of Decision	:	04/10/2019

 

Govind Raj Penwal S/o Sh. Jagat Raj, r/o H.No.71, Village Khuda Jassu, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

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

 

2.      Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Nitin Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PerSurjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the complainant being allured of getting good returns, had deposited a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month with Opposite Parties from Dec. 2013 to November 2018. Upto November 2018, a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- was deposited by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-3). After completion of the 5 years, in the month of December 2018, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with a request to release the maturity amount of Rs.3,34,894/-. However, despite completion of all the paper formalities, the Opposite Parties put off the Complainant on one pretext or the other and eventually, flatly refused to release the maturity amount on flimsy grounds. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties contested the Complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant did not deposit installments continuously rather he made default in several months. According to Scheme, the Complainant had to deposit total Rs.3,60,000/- but he deposited Rs.2,88,000/- only. Thus his account became irregular account and payment of his account shall be made as per clause 5(ii) of the terms & conditions of the Scheme. Further, no additional interest is payable over maturity amount as provided under clause 5(i) of the terms & conditions of the Scheme. Society never refused to make the payment of maturity amount as per clause 5(i) ibid but the Complainant willfully refused to receive the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         It is an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- was deposited by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties, which is abundantly clear as per the accounts statement of the Complainant (Annexure C-3).
8.         The sole grouse of the Complainant, through the present Consumer Complaint is, despite his various efforts, the Opposite Parties failed to release the maturity amount of Rs.3,34,894/-, till date.
9.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant did not deposit installments continuously rather he made default in several months. As per the Scheme offered to the Complainant, he had to deposit total Rs.3,60,000/-, but he deposited Rs.2,88,000/- only. Further, it has been contended that his account became irregular one and as per clause 5(ii) of the terms and conditions of the Scheme, he was never refused the maturity amount, but it was the Complainant who willfully refused to receive the same. 
10.         Perusal of the record clearly reveals, as per Annexure C-3, the Opposite Parties received an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- from the Complaint. The aforesaid account statement of the Complainant clearly shows that in few months, he could not deposit the regular amount of Rs.6,000/- as he deposited the same during the period right from December 2013, till November, 2018. But, it is a matter of fact that the Opposite Parties is in possession of the hard earned money of the Complainant to the tune of Rs.2,88,000/-. Perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the terms and conditions of the Scheme (Annexure C-1) enclosed by the Complainant himself shows that “The account wherein the member account holder has not continued the account regularly as specified in clause (i) above, would be treated as irregular account. The Society will charge liquidated damage on these irregular accounts on account of non-receipt of deposited installments in time and the resultant loss of investment opportunity etc. The liquidated damages would be deducted from or adjusted against the interest amount payable to the Member Account Holder. No deduction of any kind shall be made from the principal amount deposited by the Member Account Holder. Therefore, at the time of maturity, the payment in these accounts shall be made with interest as per the chart available at the Authorized Centres of the Society’s/ its Agent’s Authorized Center”.
11.          The legal objections raised by the Opposite Parties are, the Complainant is not a consumer and if there is any dispute inter se member and the Society, it has to be resolved through arbitration. However, we are of the opinion that the Complainant invested his hard earned money for personal living expenses and as such, he is a consumer qua the Opposite Parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So far as the question of arbitration clause is there, in the presence scenario, it is settled law that even if there is arbitration clause in the agreement, the Consumer Complaint is maintainable as it is additional remedy by virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard reliance is placed on Sahara India Versus Urmila Jain, IV (2016) CPJ 684 (NC) and the headnote of the same is reproduced as under: -

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) jurisdiction – Arbitration agreement – Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service – Maintainability – Since remedy provided under CP Act, 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the existence of arbitration clause in agreement is not a bar to entertainment of Complaint.”

12.         Admittedly, the Complainant invested an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- with the Opposite Parties, thus, in our view, he is fully entitled for principal amount along with certain percentage of interest which has accrued on the said investment. In these circumstances, we feel that it will be appropriate, if the Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount paid by the Complainant along with interest at the bank rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit/investment till payment of the same, along with compensation and costs of the present proceedings.
13.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.2,88,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of deposit, till date of payment.

(ii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(iii)   To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.      

                This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of deposit, till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.

14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/10/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”