Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/353/2019

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Co-op - Opp.Party(s)

R.L.Sharma

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    353 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         21.08.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 10.06.2022

 

Paramjeet Singh s/o Shri Santokh Singh, r/o Moulviwala, Gafurpura Alias Maulviwala, Patiala, Punjab. On behalf of his minor daughter i.e. Arsh Deep Kaur.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. The Superintendent, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-225024.
2. The Branch Manager/Officer Bearer, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Cheema House, 1^st Floor, Kurukshetra Road, Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri R.L. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Shishan Dutt Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                 It is alleged in the complaint that on 28.05.2012, the complainant had made SAHARA.Q. SHOP FDR bearing account No.824802000042 with OP No.2 in the name of his daughter Arsh Deep Kaur and deposited a sum of Rs.12,250/-, for a period of 5 years. At the time of opening the said account, OPs assured that after completion of 5 years, a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be paid to him. After maturity period, the complainant requested the OPs to release the FDR amount, but initially, they lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and lastly refused to pay the same. Having no alternative, he served a legal notice upon the OPs on 16.05.2019 through his counsel through registered post AD, which was duly received by the OPs, but they failed to reply the same nor redressed his grievance, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements denying the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The OPs have admitted the contents regarding depositing of amount of Rs.12,250/- in the form of FDR with it and submitted that there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. It is submitted that the OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and complainant is a member of said Society, therefore, relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and if any dispute between the Society and Member arose, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. If complainant, who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had made SAHARA.Q. SHOP FDR with OP No.2 in the name of his daughter Arsh Deep Kaur and deposited a sum of Rs.12,250/-, for a period of 5 years. At the time of opening the said account, OPs assured that after completion of 18 months, a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be paid to him. He further argued that after maturity period, complainant approached the OPs to release the FDR amount, but they lastly refused to pay the same. Having no alternative, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs on 16.05.2019 through his counsel through registered post AD, which was duly received by the OPs, but they failed to reply the same nor redressed his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

8.                Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. He argued that no doubt, the complainant deposited the amount in the form of FDR with it, but there is no provision of maturity or pre maturity payment. The OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and complainant is a member of said Society, therefore, relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and if any dispute between the Society and Member arose, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. If complainant who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Clause 10 of the terms & conditions of scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                At the outset, the first and foremost question arises before this Commission for consideration is “Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complainant or not?

10.              In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has submitted the since branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint

11.              It is admitted fact that the complainant is the resident of Moulviwala, Gafurpura Alias Maulviwala, Patiala, Punjab. Moreover, from the perusal of Receipt of FDR Ex.C-2, it is evident that the said receipt was issued from Lucknow (U.P.) i.e. OP No.2. No doubt, in the receipt Ex.C-2, in the column “Authorized Centre Name & Code, there is mentioned word “PEHWA 2480 (Pehowa 2480), but mere mentioning Pehowa (who comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Kurukshetra) in the receipt Ex.C-2, does not mean that this receipt/FDR was issued from the branch office of OPs situated at Pehowa. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any document on the case file to establish that any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Kurukshetra. Even if, it is presumed that the branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, but mere branch office does not create any territorial jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, until and unless the cause of action arises at Kurukshetra. In this regard, we can rely upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission”.

12.              However, it is pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of title of complaint as well as documents attached with it, it can be seen even with the naked eye that the complainant has no territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint before this Commission, but it is not understandable, why the counsel for the OPs, has not taken this plea of territorial jurisdiction, in his written statement as well as at the time of arguments. Moreover, perusal of written statement, filed by the OPs on 11.02.2020, has no Stamp or Seal of the OPs company. There is only signature and name written of Shri Bipin Kumar on the written statement. There is not mentioned, who is said Bipin Kumar. On which post he is working with the OPs. Similar is the position with the Vakalatnama, filed on behalf of OPs, wherein, only it is mentioned “Bipin Kumar Verma, Emp. Code 16360, Branch Head, Pehowa”. There is not mentioned the name of the Branch/office. It seems that, instead of contesting the case, the OPs looks favouring the complainant intentionally to gain undue advantage and by taking undue advantage of benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further, it appears that both the parties are ‘hand in glove with each other’, by not producing the real and accurate facts, before this Commission, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.  

13.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, we are of the considered opinion that since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. Thus, we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:10.06.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.