Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/29/2020

Rajesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Credit Society - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Singh

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    29 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         20.01.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 07.06.2022

 

Rajesh Sharma s/o Shri Ram Shrup, r/o #1487/27, Didar Nagar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. The Superintendent, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-225024.
2. Sahara India Pariwar, Amin Road, near Gita Girls School, Kurukshetra, through its concerned officer.

 

...Respondents.

 

         

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Ram Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Shishan Dutt Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (previously Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that on 28.01.2018, the complainant made SAHARA SPECIAL FDR bearing account No.24797200058 with OP No.2 and deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-, for a period of 18 months. At the time of opening the said account, OPs assured that after completion of 18 months, a sum of Rs.58,550/- 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, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, which amounts to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practise on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements denying the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties while admitting the contents regarding depositing of amount of Rs.50,000/- 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 as per Clause 11 of the terms & conditions of scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. 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-3 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 SPECIAL FDR with OP No.2 and deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-, for a period of 18 months. At the time of opening the said account, OPs assured that after completion of 18 months, a sum of Rs.58,550/- 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, 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 11 of the terms & conditions of scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                At the outset, learned counsel for the OPs raised objection that the complainant is not a consumer, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but this contention of is devoid of any force, because, perusal of case file shows that the complainant deposited the FDR amount with the OPs, as such, he availed the services of the OPs and became the consumer of OPs, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10.              Learned counsel for the OPs further raised objections that if the 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 11 of the terms & conditions of scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. But this contention of OPs is also without any force, because as per settled law, remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is an additional remedy and can be availed by the complainant, if he does not wish to avail the relief under the Arbitration Act, therefore, the present complaint, before this Commission, is maintainable and this Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. No doubt, the OPs had mentioned the Membership number in document Ex.C-2, but in the document Ex.C-3, there is mentioned the maturity amount i.e. Rs.58,550/- and from it, it is clear that the OPs issued the FDR to the complainant for a considerable period.

11.              Now coming on the merits of the case.

12.              From the FDR document Ex.C-3, it is evident that on 22.01.2018, complainant opened a FDR account with OP No.2 for a period of 18 months after depositing Rs.50,000/-, and after maturity of said FDR i.e. on 22.07.2019, the maturity amount of Rs.58,550/- shall be paid to the complainant.

13.              The grievance of the complainant is that after maturity period i.e. 22.07.2019, when he requested the OPs to release the total maturity amount of his FDR, then they flatly refused to pay the same, which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise on the part of OPs.

14.              Now-a-days finance companies attracts the innocent people to deposit/invest their blood sweat earnings with them with the lure of higher interest rate, and when the time comes to return the said deposit/investment with interest to those people, then these finance companies refused to pay the same or run away by closing their office/business overnight, by taking the entire life's earning/deposited capital of those innocent people. In the case in hand, the OPs also allured the complainant to deposit/invest his money with them as FDR by saying that after maturity of said FDR, he will receive the handsome maturity amount and as such, by falling into their trap, the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- with the OPs as FDR, but after maturity of said FDR on 22.07.2019, when the complainant demanded the maturity amount from the OPs, they refused to release the same, rather, they kept the said amount with them even after the maturity date and using the same. Due to non-releasing the maturity amount of FDR to the complainant, by the OPs, he suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss, without any fault on his part, which is an act gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, on the part of the OPs. For their above act of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, the OPs, not only liable to release the total maturity amount of FDR to the complainant along with the interest, but also liable to pay the compensation amount and litigations expenses to the complainant.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to release the total maturity amount of FDR (as shown in FDR document Ex.C-3) alongwith interest @6% simple per annum, to the complainant, from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.01.2020, till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act, against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:07.06.2022.

    

                                                                              (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)         President,

Member.                    Member                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.