Delhi

North East

CC/102/2021

Ms. Sapna Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

13 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 102/21

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Sapna Singh, D/o Sh. Ram Nayan singh R/o 9/1965, Street No. 2 Kailash Nagar,Delhi 110031	Complainant
	Versus
1.	Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024   Also at: B-Block, Pocket 3, First Floor, Rajendra Santosi House, Near ICICI Bank Local Shopping Complex, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

16.08.2021 17.05.2023 13.06.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant opened an account under Sahara Benefit Scheme for period of 60 months of monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/-. The said account was opened from 10.10.13 to 30.12.17 and Complainant had deposited 52 instalments. The Complainant stated that she came to know that Opposite Party had been defaulting in repayment of maturity value to customers. Therefore, after depositing 52 instalments i.e. Rs. 52,000/- upto 30.12.17 Complainant decided to discontinue to deposit further instalments. The Complainant stated that she visited Dilshad Garden office of Opposite Party for repayment of maturity value of her account but Opposite Party failed to make the repayment of the amount deposited by Complainant. The Complainant had sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 07.04.21 despite service Opposite Party neither complied nor responded to the legal notice. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 52,000/- with interest @ 15 % from January 2018 to August 2021 i.e. Rs. 28,600/-. She further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. The Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party entered appearance and received the copy of complaint however, no written statement was filed on its behalf. Therefore, the defence of the Opposite Party was struck off vide order dated 10.06.22.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of her case filed her ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant.
5. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant opened an account under Sahara Benefit Scheme for period of 60 months of monthly instalments of  Rs. 1,000/- from 10.10.13 to 30.12.17 and Complainant had deposited 52 instalments. The Complainant stated that she came to know that Opposite Party had been defaulting in repayment of maturity value to customers. Therefore, after depositing 52 instalments i.e. Rs. 52,000/- upto 30.12.17 Complainant decided to discontinue to deposit further instalments and asked the maturity amount under the scheme however, the Opposite Party has not paid the due amount till date.
6. We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file. On perusal of the copy of passbook (Ex.C.1) filed by the Complainant, it is clear that the Complainant had deposited 52 instalments of Rs. 1,000/- till 30.12.2017. The Complainant has testified on oath that as she had reasons to believe that the Opposite Party was defaulting in payment of maturity amount, she sought refund of the payment of maturity value from the Opposite Party by visiting their branch at Dilshad Garden. The Complainant has sent legal notice also in that regard but the Opposite Party has neither replied the notice nor paid the amount. The contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party failed to pay the maturity amount, hence, committed deficiency of service.
7. As Opposite Party has not contested the case and failed to file their version, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath. However, the Complainant has herself admitted that she had paid only 52 instalments instead of 60, hence, the Complainant is not entitled to maturity amount. But, the Opposite Party is liable to refund  Rs.52,000/- which it has kept since 30.12.17
8. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has been deficient in services by not providing the satisfactory services to the Complainant. However, the Complainant has herself admitted that she had paid only 52 instalments instead of 60, hence, the Complainant is not entitled to maturity amount under the scheme. But, the Opposite Party is very much liable to refund Rs.52,000/- which they  have kept illegally and failed to refund to the Complainant in spite of her requests.
9. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.52,000/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of  Rs. 15,000 /- to the Complainant on account of litigation expenses and harassment along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery. 
10. Order announced on 13.06.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President