Punjab

Sangrur

CC/247/2021

Shikha Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Parivar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Aggarwal

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 247

 Instituted on:   18.02.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     06.07.2022

 

Shikha Garg aged about 24 years daughter of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, resident of H.No.15B/227, Tehsil Mohalla, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara India Parivar, Area Office: SCO 84-A, IInd Floor, Phase-V, Shahi Majra, Banongi Road, Near AM Hospital, Sec-58, Mohali 160062 through its Manager.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its President.

3.     Raj Kumar Garg, Franchisee Manager, Sahara India Parivar, 4 Khamba Market, Near Binny Sound, Bhawanigarh 148026. 

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.        

For the OPs                 : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                                  Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

                                                       FINAL ORDER

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that she was allured to invest in a scheme floated by the OPs vide which the complainant was supposed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- per month for five years in a row following which OPs were to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.77,700/- on maturity. Trusting this assurance, the complainant opened in account bearing number 56151300195 on 19.10.2013. The complainant deposited all the 60 instalments of Rs.1000/- each total Rs.60,000/- with the OPs. However, the complainant approached the OPs to refund the above said amount on its maturity, but even after expiry of the same the amount was not paid. Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then she was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.77,700/- along with interest and also for Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony, harassment and further Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared through Advocate Shri Udit Goyal and filed written response raising preliminary objection regarding status  of the complainant being a consumer and also explained as to how their’s is a society and it was only on the specific request of the complainant that she was inducted as a member thereof, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant to bring this dispute before the Consumer Forum/Commission instead of approaching the Arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause.

3.             Besides the above said legal objection, OPs have also averred that it is only member of the society who can avail its benefit and, therefore, after having well understood various rules, regulations, byelaws and objectives of the society the complainant became a member and thereafter  the complainant deposited 60 instalments of Rs.1000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- in total.  After expiry of the said period the complainant never approached concerned officials of the OPs, as such it was not possible for the latter to release the maturity amount.  That being so, complainant could not allege herself to be a consumer of the OPs as there is no subsistence of relationship of consumer and that of the service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  So, the complainant cannot legally seek any such relief under the Consumer Protection Act, so the complaint deserves dismissal.

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

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that his client availed services of the OPs by opening a recurring deposit account in question and was supposed to deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- per month for 60 months and the complainant deposited whole of 60 instalments. Further it was also argued that after the lapse of the expiry date, the complainant approached the Ops with a request to release the deposited amount but some how or the other latter did not accede thereto thereby compelling to approach this Forum/Commission.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant is not a consumer, therefore, her grievance cannot be heard sympathetically in this Forum/Commission. Fact of the matter is that the OPs happens to be a society and the complainant became its member and thereafter invested some amount in one of its schemes as such now if there is any sort of dispute between the complainant and the OPs then only option open to the complainant was to approach the arbitrator and seek his indulgence instead of rushing to this Commission, so the present complaint should be thrown out.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- with the OPs in 60 instalments of Rs.1000/- per month, which is evident from the statement on record receipt Ex.OP-3.  However, there is variance between the parties so far as the status of the complainant is concerned as complainant alleges herself to be a consumer vis-à-vis OPs which can well termed to be service provider whereas latter has alleged themselves to be a society and the complainant being a member thereof should have approached the Arbitrator in case of any dispute to resolve this controversy. If we look into the file, Ops have not placed any document on record which could indicate that the complainant at any point of time approached the Ops with a specific request to acquire its membership and then had invested with it.  In the same context, going a step ahead there is absolutely no material which could show that any such resolution was adopted by various officials of the OPs or if complainant was ever made to write his signatures on any such application form for becoming member thereof.  Ex.OP-2 is simply a printed form with all its columns lying blank could hardly be pressed into service to fortify the contention of the OPs. Even a sole and definite stand adopted by OPs in this regard vide a separate application also stood repelled by this Forum/Commission. On the contrary, the correct photocopy of the statement relied upon by the complainant palpably go to show that in fact the disputed amount of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the complainant with concerned officials of the OPs.  Now the Ops have not released the deposited/maturity amount which tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part.

9.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.77,700/-   along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of maturity till realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.4000/- as  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.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                July 6, 2022.