Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/579/2022

Lakhmir Singh Chane - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepak Aggarwal

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/579/2022
Date of Institution	:	06/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Lakhmir Singh Chane, H. No.192, Green City, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140603.  

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Regd. Office : Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024 through its Managing Director.
2. The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Sahara India, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
3. Second Address : Sahara Parivar,  SCO No.541, 2^nd Floor, Gali No.5, Keshoram Complex, Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

 … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under -

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OP-1 company had floated various schemes and invited public at large to invest amount in the schemes whereby lucrative incentives and interest was offered and on the assurance of the OPs, complainant had invested hard earned money in various scheme floated by OPs by depositing an amount of ₹1,62,000/-  in recurring deposit, which was having maturity date of 31.10.2021. However, the complainant did not further deposit the money because after deposit of the some installments it came to notice of the complainant that Opposite Party company has no intention to pay the maturity value and further that they duped thousands of investors.  The complainant approached the OPs for refund of deposited amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. due dates of deposits. The OPs told the complainant that the said amount shall be directly transferred into his bank account. However, despite repeated requests, OPs had not released the aforesaid amount and in this manner the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.  Thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice to the OPs on 27.5.2022, but, the same was not responded by them. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, suppression of facts, jurisdiction and also that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as complainant was a member of the Society, hence the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, stated that the complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the society had availed the membership at his own will and desire and deposited the amount. It is denied that OPs had assured the complainant that he will get any benefit or that the company will pay interest on the delay of payment. It is averred that the complainant should approach the appropriate authority i.e. Central Registrar against any grievances or should apply under arbitration clause. Even this Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  It is denied that the OPs have caused any loss or harassment to the complainant or that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Counsel for the complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that complainant had deposited an amount of ₹1,62,000/-  with the OPs in the shape of recurring deposit (Annexure C-1)  which was to mature on 31.10.2021, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant is entitled for the matured amount alongwith interest from the OPs, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, deserves dismissal, as is the defence of the OPs.
2. Annexure C-1 is the copy of Ledger Statement issued by the OPs as per which complainant had deposited an amount of ₹1,62,000/-  with the OPs from 31.10.2015 to 23.2.2018.  Admittedly, the complainant had not continuously deposited the installments as per scheme but the amount of ₹1,62,000/-  deposited by the complainant with the OPs has not been paid by them to the complainant till date though the OPs have no right to retain the amount after the date of maturity.  Not only this, when it has come on record that the complainant had deposited the aforesaid amount after being allured of good returns and even after maturity of said invested amount, the maturity amount was not paid to him, it is clear on record that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the said amount alongwith interest and compensation.
3. The OPs resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer since as per case of the complainant he has invested the amount in question and he is not entitled for any relief from this Commission.  On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case title Kiran Krishana Agro Tech Ltd. Vs. Smt P.V. Shantha Kumari in revision No.4229 of 2007 decided on 26.4.2012 in which it was held that:.

“where the petitioner has failed to pay the  maturity value of FDRs, the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part”.

 

4. In the case in hand it is also the case of the complainant that the OPs failed to pay maturity  value of the fixed deposit made by the complainant with the OPs. Thus, the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
5. The OPs have also resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint as per Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and also on account of bar under the Arbitration Act.  So far as the defence of the OPs that the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under the 2002 Act is concerned, the same is without merit as the complainant has been claiming the amount, whatever was deposited by him with the OPs in the shape of fixed deposit, which has also not been disputed by the OPs. 
6. Similarly, the provisions of Arbitration Act do not affect the jurisdiction of this Commission as it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftaab, 2018 Online SCC 2378 that consumer disputes are non arbitrable.
7. As far as the defence of the OPs that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and the complainant should approach the Central Registrar as this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint and also that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act is concerned, the same is also not tenable in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vs. Anil Kasliwal & 2 Ors., III (2022) CPJ 224 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1)(d), 21 (b) – Consumer – Fixed deposit – Deposit of money in a Fixed Deposit Account cannot be termed as “commercial transaction.” – Submission of petitioner that complainants are not “consumers” is rejected.”

4. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the complainant has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint partly succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the amount of ₹1,62,000/-  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  last deposit  i.e . 23.2.2018 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/04/2023			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member