Delhi

North East

CC/142/2021

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Jul 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. 142/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Raj Kumar, S/o Lt. Shri Hukam Singh, R/o House No. 162/2/G-3, Samta Vihar, Mukund Extn., Part-2, Delhi-110042,		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Shri Subrata Roy (M.D) C-31, Khajoori Khas, Delhi-110090     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd Shri Ajay Gupta( Manager) C-31, Khajoori Khas, Delhi-110090		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		04.10.21. 25.04.23 06.07.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, 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 is that he has purchased 28 Certificate/ Bond/Policy/FD of approx. 5 lakhs with Opposite Party having maturity date and amount for certificate no. 5505781070 to 5505781072 for amount of       Rs. 41,292/-, Rs. 28,675/- and 28,675/- respectively on 23.06.21 and from 55057800651 to 550557800674 for an amount of Rs. 17,205/- for each 25 certificate on 31.01.21. The Complainant stated that at the time of purchasing Opposite Party assured Complainant he should take certificate from them and they will gave house and job to Complainant and also interest occurred on his amount after maturity period. The Complainant stated that on assurance of Opposite Party Complainant buy 28 Certificate/ Bond/Policy/FD from Opposite Party and paid almost Rs. 5 lakhs to Opposite Party but date of maturity had passed and after many visits to Opposite Party, Opposite Party company was not releasing the amount of Complainant. The Complainant also sent legal notice dated 16.09.21.  Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 5,03,000/-  and  Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

2. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.2 that Complainant in memo of parties of complaint made Sh. Subrata Roy Opposite Party No.1 but Sh. Subrata Roy is not a Chairman/Director/General Manager/Manager and senior most employee of society. The Complainant in memo of parties made Sh. Ajay Gupta as Opposite Party No.2 without any sole ground and Opposite Party No.2 and Complainant does not have any personal transaction between them. The Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. is registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002. Being a Multi Level Cooperative Society, the conduct of society is under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002. This act is whole in itself provides rules and regulation for its members and duties assigned. This act provides solution for disputes between society and other members. In Clause 84 of the said act clearly mentioned a dispute occurs between members and society then it is put for mediation. It is clearly mentioned in this act that if something is included in another law then it is referred for mediation. According to act and provision, present dispute is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. The para 4 of complaint is not admitted as Complainant did not supplied any original certificate issue to him by the Opposite Party for amount claimed by the Complainant. Complainant also stated that they forcefully invest in other scheme which is not true. After the maturity of old scheme members invest in other scheme to gain profit by themselves not by the society. Opposite Party have not taken any kind of advantage of the circumstances of Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint

 

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. Evidence of the Opposite Party was closed vide order dated 15.02.23.

Arguments & Conclusion

6.  We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file.
7. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased 25 Certificate on 31.07.19 of Rs. 15,000/- each with maturity value of Rs. 17,205/- each maturing on 31.01.21 from Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. It is further stated by the Complainant that he has purchased two certificates on 23.12.19 for Rs. 25,000/- each with maturity value of Rs. 28,675/- each maturing on 23.06.21. He has also purchased one more certificate from Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. of Rs. 35,000/- on 23.12.19 having the maturity value of Rs. 41,292/- maturing on 23.06.21.  The Complainant visited the Opposite Party for payment of maturity amount of 28 certificates after the maturity date. The Complainant made several visits to Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. buy they did not release any amount. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.
8. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 filed application for deletion of their name on the ground that Complainant does not have any personal transaction between them. It is further stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. is registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002. Being a Multi Level Cooperative Society, the conduct of society is under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 which provides solution for disputes between society and other members but Opposite Party No.2 did not contested the amount deposited by the Complainant with Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. They also did not file any evidence in support of their case. 
9. In view of the judgment Secretary, Thirumurugan Vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. in Appeal No. 92 of 1998 (Supra), the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
10.  In view of the above discussion, it is clear from the evidence submitted by the Complainant that he has purchased 28 certificates from the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. having total value of Rs. 4,60,000/- with maturity value of Rs. 5,28,767/- and the said certificates matured on 23.06.21 and 31.01.21. In our considered view, there is deficiency of service on behalf of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 5,28,767/- to the Complainant with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery on submission of original certificates by the Complainant to the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. The Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 06.07.23.

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

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President