Delhi

West Delhi

CC/19/362

KRISHAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA CREDIT CORP. SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL commission-III(WEST)

C 150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD,JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058

 

CC No. 362/2019

 

 

IN RE:

 

Sh. Krishan Lal

S/o Late Sh. Maya Das

R/o A- 64, New Moti Nagar

New Delhi-110015                                                  ....Complainant

 

 

VERSUS

 

1.Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited

   Reg. Office Add.:Sahara India Bhawan,

   1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024

 

2.Saharayn Universal  Multipurpose Society Limited,

   Reg. Office Add.: 195, Zone- 1,

   In Front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar,

   Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462011

 

   Both 1 & 2 having branch office at:

   Wz- 101/1, Tagore Garden,

   New Delhi- 110027

 

3.Balraj Juneja

   S/o Late Shri Nanak Chand

   R/o A- 100, New Moti Nagar,

 

  

Coram:                                                                            

MS.SONICA MEHROTRA, PRESIDENT

MS.RICHA JINDAL, MEMBER

MR.ANIL KUMAR KOUSHAL, MEMBER

 

Present: Mr.Anish Sarna,  counsel for the complainant.

               OP Ex parte.

Date of Institution:08.08.2019

Judgment reserved on: 25.04.2023

Date of Decision:10.05.2023

 

6698606.  

 

Per:  ANIL KUMAR KOUSHAL, MEMBER

 

          Concise facts of the present complainant are  noted hereunder:

1.       Complainant submits that OP No.3, being the agent of OPs 1 & 2  having agency code 190410017 had approached him and influenced him with some lucrative investment plans launched by OPs 1 & 2 and assured guaranteed returns on maturity as well as pre- maturity return benefits.  Complainant  believing  those  assurances, had invested his hard earned money in the form of fixed deposits, details of which are given as under:

Membership No.	ACCOUNT No.	Date of deposit	Amount deposited	Maturity date	Maturity amount	Period in month
71951200037	71954200046	03.01.2012	10,000/-	03.01.2020	26,120/-	96
	71954200047	03.01.2012	10,000/-	03.01.2020	26,120/-	96
	71954200048	03.01.2012	10,000/-	03.01.2020	26,120/-	96
	71954200049	03.01.2012	10,000/-	03.01.2020	26,120/-	96
	71954200050	03.01.2012	10,000/-	03.01.2020	26,120/-	96
18041101771	18043700486	05.05.2011	10,000/-	05.05.2019	22,640/-	96
	18043700487	05.05.2011	10,000/-	05.05.2019	22,640/-	96
	18043700488	05.05.2011	10,000/-	05.05.2019	22,640/-	96
	18043700489	05.05.2011	10,000/-	05.05.2019	22,640/-	96
	18043700490	05.05.2011	10,000/-	05.05.2019	22,640/-	96
18041106486	18043703398	15.12.2011	10,000/-	15.12.2019	26,120/-	96
	18043703399	15.12.2011	10,000/-	15.12.2019	26,120/-	96
	18043703400	15.12.2011	10,000/-	15.12.2019	26,120/-	96
	18043703401	15.12.2011	10,000/-	15.12.2019	26,120/-	96
	18043703402	15.12.2011	10,000/-	15.12.2019	26,120/-	96
918046001268		31.05.2016	1,711/-
18041201834	18044203397	14.07.2012	59,530/-	14.07.2020	1,55,492/-	96
71951200569	71954201071	16.07.2012	59,226/-	16.07.2020	1,54,698/-	96

 

At the time of sending legal notice, the FD bearing Account No. 18044203397 and 71954201071 was not traceable, so it was not mentioned in the legal notice.

3.       According to the complainant, the above mentioned fixed deposits had  both, matured as well as pre-mature at the time of filing of the complaint and the total deposited amount is   Rs.2,70,467/-  which will become approximately Rs.6,85,761/- at the time of their maturity dates.  Complainant had given this money to OPs 1 & 2 on the entrustment of OP no. 3. Complainant was told that a lesser amount of money will be given than the promised maturity amount if the deposits are broken and money is withdrawn before the date of maturity, if required by him. When the Complainant approached OPs 1 & 2 through OP no. 3 to collect his maturity amount against the fixed deposits that had got matured, OPs 1 & 2 simply denied from getting them encashed without any reason and pressurized to get them renewed. The Complainant was in urgent need of money so he denied the  proposal to get the fixed deposits renewed and again requested the OPs 1 & 2 to give his money back to him. Complainant now wants to get all his above mentioned fixed deposits encashed as soon as possible because it is his right to get the money back from OPs 1 & 2 whether matured or premature.  Complainant submits that due to blocking of his hard earned money without any genuine reason, he is suffering mentally, physically and financially as he is an old age senior citizen who had saved his money to meet his daily expenses as well as medical bills for his bad times. Complainant has no other source of income except this money. Complainant approached the OPs many times but to no avail. Left with no other option, the Complainant sent legal notice dated 18.06.2019 to the OPs requesting  to return his money, but upon receipt of the said legal notice, the OPs, till date, have failed to return the Complainant's money.  Complainant submits that the whole game plan of the OPs is a conspiracy to loot the gullible customers like him, by firstly luring them by way of false promises, advertisement, etc. and then taking money with the intention to cheat and misappropriating the same and then let the customer run from pillar to post to reclaim his money.  According to complainant, the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service for misleading the complainant as also on account of unfair trade practices for which the complainant needs to be compensated. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission under the CP Act, 1986, the complainant has  made the following prayers:

1) to direct the OPs to immediately return the money due to the  Complainant,

 

(2) to direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on

    account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as also on account of

    mental and physical  agony faced by the complainant,

 

         (3) to award cost of the proceedings and other incidental expenses incurred

               by the complainant in pursuing the present complaint.

 

4.       Complainant attached copies of FDRs  mentioned above as also  legal notice dated 18.6.2019, with the complaint.

5.       Upon admission of the complaint on 08.08.2019, notice was issued to all the OPs who filed a joint written statement thereto.   OPs took the preliminary objection that the complainant is not their consumer. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs. Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited/OP No.2 is duly registered under "Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002" and the complainant is a member of said Society. Thus relation between the complainant and the OPs is of Member and Society. Therefore, for any dispute between the  Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. If the complainant, who is a member of the Society, has any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration agreement under clause: 18 of the scheme of Saharayan Universal Multi Purpose society Limited which is reproduced herein as under:

“Clause 18. Arbitration:-All dispute between Society and Member  shall be subject to arbitration as per the provisions of S. 84 of the "Multi State Co- operative Society Act, 2002 as amended from time to time.”

6.       OPs submitted that  most of the accounts of the complainant are un-matured and the same will mature on 15.12.2019. In this situation, the payments of all accounts could not be made simultaneously to the Complainant. Without the completion of maturity, the payment could not be made. Therefore, on this ground also, the complaint is not maintainable.

7.       OPs further contended that the Complainant has wrongly arrayed OP No.1 as a party in this complaint  whereas a perusal of the documents filed with the complaint,  reveals that the said accounts have been opened in the Saharyan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. which is another company and it has nothing to do with this society. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 8.      OPs denied that the maturity amount of the FDs will become Rs.6,85,761/- after maturity period. The Complainant had contributed a total Sum of Rs.1,60,711/-/- vide memebership no. 18041101771 vide various accounts no 18043700486, 18043700487, 18043700488,18043700489,18043700490 and also through other membership no 18041106486 opened accounts 18043703398, 18043703399, 18043703400, 18043703401, 18043703402 on dated 05.05.2011 as well as by another membership 71951200037 opened accounts 71954200046, 71954200047, 71954200048, 71954200049 & 71954200050 on dated 03.01.2012 for the period of 96 months deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- against each account and also opened account 18046602162 whereby deposited Rs.1711/- under the scheme of Sahara E.Shine & Super BB accordingly, rather the complainant had made contribution for the furtherance of objects of the Society according to terms and conditions of scheme. There is no provision for payment of interest upon contribution amount made by the complainant. The OPs can only make payment to the Complainant on Maturity after completion of Maturity period, whereas most of the accounts of the Complainant will  mature either in the month of December 2019 or January 2020. This scheme is not a Fixed Deposit scheme. The complainant is trying to mislead this Commission by making baseless and false statements. 

9.       OPs denied that any assurance was given by them to Complainant that deposited amount can be withdrawn before maturity and on withdrawal, a lesser amount will be released to complainant. Actually, the real fact is that the  Complainant was demanding excess amount of matured FDs and unmatured FDs and that was the  reason that the  payment could not be made to the complainant of  the contributed amount. There is no provision to pay interest on deposited amount and the statement given by the Complainant is totally false.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and  no cause of action has ever arisen to file the present complaint.  

10.     OPs denied having received the  legal notice  from the complainant.  It is submitted that OPs are making payment to every person as per terms & conditions of the scheme.  The complainant before opting for contribution scheme of Saharayan Universal Multi Purpose Society Limited, duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme and signed the declaration.

11.     OPs submitted that as per clause -10 of Saharayn Contribution scheme, after there (03) years from the date of contribution, the member can apply for refund of contributed money only. No Interest is payable over the contributed amount, rather the Governing Body of the Society compensates the member in cash mode or by providing the products.  It is submitted that for getting refund, the member has to surrender original certificate. After that on the date of payment, the member has to be present at the office with Identity Proof for verification and to sign the discharge voucher. The complainant has claimed additional amount than the amount which was being paid by the Society as per the terms and conditions of the scheme and he wilfully refused to surrender the original certificates. The complainant didn't complete the formalities of payment. Due to complainant's fault, payment could not have been made for which the complainant is solely liable. The OPs never refused or linger on the payment. OPs, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint  with cost.

12.     OPs filed with their written statement, specimen copies of the Contribution Form of OP No.2 and Sahara E Shine along with their terms and conditions.

13.     Not satisfied with the contentions  of OPs in their written statement, complainant filed rejoinder in rebuttal thereof and denied all of them in toto.  Complainant denied that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the complainant is a member of the society of OPs and not a consumer. It is stated that the whole transaction that took place between the Complainant and the OPs purely explains that the Complainant is the customer of  OPs. Complainant  denied that the  only remedy available  to him is to approach any other forum but not the Consumer Fora. It is stated that  section- 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy available to the Consumers.

14.     Complainant denied that he is bound by any arbitration agreement because as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the arbitration agreement cannot bar the complainant to seek the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act.

15.     Complainant  denied that all deposits are pre-mature as some  of them were mature and even then the OPs denied to encash the same. It is further stated that the terms of  deposit allow to encash the deposits before the expiry period also.

16.     Complainant also denied  that he has wrongly arrayed OP no.1 because the FDs  annexed with the complaint specifically shows the name of OP no. 1 which is sufficient to show the involvement of OP no.1 along with OPs 2 and 3.  It is denied by the complainant that he  has asked for any excess amount. Complainant submitted that OPs never made  any efforts to make the payments to the complainant.  It is submitted that the  interest claimed by the complainant from the OP is for the delayed payments and because of the deficiency of services on the part of OPs.  Complainant reiterated the prayers made  in the complaint.

17.     Evidence  by way of affidavit was led by the complainant as also by the OPs and both exhibited the documents filed on record.  Complainant filed written arguments on record.However, despite grant of opportunities, OPs failed to appear or file their written arguments and accordingly vide order dated 11.01.23, the OPs wer proceeded against ex parte. Oral arguments of complainant were heard on 25.4.2023 when Mr. Anish Sarna, counsel for the complainant put forth his submissions.   After going through the pleadings filed on record by the OPs, orders were reserved in terms of provisions of Section 38(3)(C) of the CP Act, 2019.

18.     As regards the objection taken by the OPs that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement  executed between the complainant  and OPs, we may note that the  Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the cases of M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited vs Aftab Singh, (Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 OF 2018  in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 OF 2017), decided on 10.12.2018, 2018(6) R.A.J.747(SC) Secretary, Thirumurugan vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors, decided on 11 December, 2003, 2004 AIR (SC) 448   and  State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and others  [(2003) 2 SCC 412] held that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation specially enacted for  protection of consumers and provides an additional remedy in the shape of Section 3 of 1986 Act (old Act) and Section 100 of CPA, 2019(new Act) and is therefore, in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of any other law for the time being in force and a harmonious construction of provisions  contained in the CPA  shall indicate that jurisdiction of Consumer Forums is not barred.  Therefore, the  CP Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of Civil Courts or other statutory authorities.  Accordingly,  the objection of OPs on this score is decided against  them.

19.     As regards the objection of OPs that the complaint qua OP No.1 is not maintainable for mis-joinder of parties, we observe that  the FDRs issued by the OPs in favour of the complainant, carry the name of OP No.1 on top of them.   Further the contention of OPs that interest is not payable on the principal amount of the FDRs  held with  OPs, we find  that the said FDRs apart from showing the principal amount deposited by the complainant, also mention  the maturity amount which makes it amply clear that the said FDRs carried interest on the principal amount. Further Clause 10  of the terms and onditions attached to the said FDRs also mention about the pre-stage maturity and maturity amount meaning thereby that the amount deposited can be withdrawn before maturity also, in which case, lesser  amount towards withdrawal shall be allowed in comparison to amount on maturity.   In any case,  all the FDRs in question  have now matured for payment and still no steps were taken by the OPs  to pay the maturity amount of the FDs though boasting  in the written statement that the OPs never refused or linger on the payments. The stand of OPs on these grounds is falsified.  Denying the legitimate claim of the complainant, has resulted in  deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice followed by the  OPs.

20.       Our above discussion culminates into terming the complainant as a “consumer” of OPs 1 & 2, having invested his money in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs 1 & 2  (reference Apex Court judgment in the case of Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, 2013(2) SCR 1058, 2013(9) SCC 393, decided on 23.4.2013). Accordingly, complaint is allowed and OPs 1 & 2 are held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not releasing the  legitimate amount on maturity/pre-maturity of the FDs of the complainant.  OPs 1 & 2 are directed to  refund to the complainant the amount deposited by him in various FDRs along with the maturity amount, total of which, as  per our calculation, on maturity comes to Rs.6,84,590/-(by excluding the amount of Rs.1711/- deposited by the complainant as membership of the OP Society).   For the harassment and mental agony faced by the complainant and financial loss suffered by him due to wastage of time, OPs 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   Let this order be complied with by  OPs 1 & 2  within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order shall be supplied to parties to the dispute free of cost  under Regulation 21 of CPR, 2020 on a written requisition/application being made by them in the name of  President of this Commission. File be consigned to record room.

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President