DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

                                           PATIALA                                                

                                             Consumer Complaint No.105 dt.13/03/2019

                                                                Decided on:  07/05/2021

Arvinder Singh aged about 43 years son of Sh. Hardit Singh resident of H. No.15-C, Baba Jeevan Singh Nagar, Near Charan Bagh, Patiala.

                                                                             ...Complainant

                                      Versus 

1.    Sahara  India  Pariwar, S.O. Patiala,  Opposite  Polo  Ground,  Lower 

       Mall, Patiala, through its authorized Signatory.

2.    Sahara  Q Shop  Uni., Kaapoorthala  Complex, Lucknow 226024

                 through its  Managing  Director.

….Opposite parties.

                                Complaint under section 11 to 14 of the                  

                         Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

QUORUM

                                Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President                    

                                          Sh. V. K. Gulati, Member 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Amar Singh Adv. counsel for complainant.

Sh. Dhiraj Puri Adv. counsel for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER

                              JASJIT  SINGH BHINDER,  PRESIDENT

1.                  Complainant has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely Sahara  India Pariwar & Ors. ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) on the ground that complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.22,000/- vide  receipt No.71020034053 dt. 30/08/2012. The date of maturity of the said scheme was 09/02/2016 and maturity value of the  scheme is Rs.33,132/-. After due date of said scheme the complainant contacted the OP’s concerned office for release of the amount, who told the complainant that the maturity amount of 33,132/- had been converted into fixed deposit on 09/02/2016 for further 36 months. The date of maturity of the fixed deposit has been fixed for 09/02/2019.  The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount but they failed to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs,  the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the maturity amount along with 12% interest and to pay cost of compensation and  litigation expenses. 

2.                  In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is a member of the society and if any member of the society has any grievance then he should go to the arbitrator for arbitration. On merits, it is stated that the complainant being the member of the society had chosen to invest amount in Sahara Plan in the shape of FDRs at Branch office Patiala of Society. It is further submitted that the maturity value of accounts was as per the terms and conditions of scheme. It is prayed that complaint is baseless, hence complainant is not entitled to any relief and the same is liable to be dismissed. 

3                    The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits. 

4.                  We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.  

5.                  To prove the case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA is the affidavit of the complainant wherein he has deposed as per his complaint and Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 are the copies of FDRs. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant deposited Rs.33,132/- vide FDR which was issued by the OP no.2 in favour of the complainant. Further it is contended that the complainant approached the OPs and requested OP to release the maturity amount of the FDR, but the amount was not paid despite approaching the OPs. On the other hand, the OPs have  tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Rameshwar Gupta along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of authority letter and Ex.OP-2 copy of application form along with terms and conditions.   

6.             It is proved on record that the complainant deposited with the opposite parties a total amount of Rs.33,132/- vide copy of FDR  Ex.C-2. Opposite parties failed to pay the due amount along with interest.  So it is clear that the OPs have defrauded the complainant despite the fact that amount was received but OPs have not made the payment.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.33,132/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 09/02/2019 till realization.  It is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.      

ANNOUNCED*  

Dated: 07/05/2021                

                          Vinod Kumar Gulati                    Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                          Member                                    President