DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/16/2021

Date of Institution   : 02.02.2021

Date of Decision    : 07.12.2021

Swaran Lata wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Ramji Dass resident of H.No. B-XI/1769, Street No. 1, Shakti Nagar, Barnala. 

                …Complainant

Versus

1. Sahara India Parivar, Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corp., Lower Mall, Near Modi College Patiala through its Manager. 

2. Sahara India Parivar, Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow-226024, through its Authorized Signatory.

           …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Present: Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties.

 

 

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Swaran Lata has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (amended upto date) against Sahara India Parivar and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has availed the services of opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant had purchased 10.00 (Ten) fully paid up bonds “SAHARA T” of Rupees one thousand each in the above named company on 10.3.2007 vide receipt No. 10343704566 and in this regard the opposite parties issued the necessary receipt/bond to the complainant. It is further alleged that at the time of receiving the above said payment of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant, the opposite parties promised to return the amount of Rs. 30,000/- on 10.5.2019 and has specifically mentioned in the receipt/bond that the Redemption value of the said bonds is Rs. 30,000/- and the redemption date is 10.5.2019. The payment was received by the opposite parties at Barnala. It is further alleged that the complainant had received Rs. 10,000/- out of the above said redemption amount from the opposite parties on 5.12.2015 being part payment. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests to opposite parties to pay the remaining redemption amount to the complainant as per above said receipt/bond, but they linger on the matter on the one pretext or the other. A registered letter dated 19.9.2019 was also sent to opposite party No. 1, but with no effect. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay the remaining redemption amount of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 

ii) To pay Rs. 20,000/-  on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.     

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and invested an amount of Rs. 10,000/- under the scheme of the company at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the answering opposite parties was rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such, the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment, but complainant willfully refused to receive the same in part. So, due to this reason the above said payment could not have been made. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bond Ex.C-2, copy of receipt Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 19.9.2019 Ex.C-4, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 9.11.2021.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file as well as written arguments filed by the complainant.  

7. In order to prove her case the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. She has further placed on record copy of receipt Ex.C-2, which shows that a total amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties on 10.3.2007. She has further placed on record copy of bond Ex.C-3, which shows that the complainant has purchased 10.00 (Ten) fully paid up bonds “SAHARA T” of Rupees One Thousand each in the above named company. Further, Ex.C-3 also shows the Redemption Value of Rs. 30,000/- with Redemption Date i.e. 10.5.2019. Further, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 19.9.2019 and Ex.C-5 is the copy of postal receipt. 

8. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 9.11.2021.

9. Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant has purchased the bonds of Rs. 10,000/- Ex.C-3 from the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the records it has been proved that the complainant has purchased the above said bonds of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties as per Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3. So, we are of the view that the complainant has successful in proving that she has purchased the bonds of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite parties and the opposite parties were bound to pay the total Redemption Value of Rs. 30,000/- on 10.5.2019 as per Ex.C-3. However, the complainant has alleged in her complaint that she has received Rs. 10,000/- out of the above said redemption amount from the opposite parties on 5.12.2015 being part payment and requested the opposite parties to pay the remaining redemption amount to the complainant i.e. Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest.  

10. However, the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection in their written version that opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In fact, this dispute is with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the opposite parties for a particular period and the refund of the same along with benefits. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No. 127 of 2021 & others in case titled Savitri Devi Vs M/s Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, decided on 21.6.2021 has held that Consumer Fora (now Consumer Commission) has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, where the consumer comes to the Consumer Fora/Commission claiming the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the present case also, consumer-complainant is complaining that the opposite parties have not complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme by not refunding the amount deposited by her along with due benefits. There is no dispute between opposite parties and the complainant regarding management and governance of the Society. Even otherwise, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection, 1986, now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the remedy available before the Consumer Fora/Commission is an additional remedy. Accordingly the complainant, being member of the opposite parties-Society, falls under the definition of ‘consumer’. 

So, it is proved that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and the Consumer Fora (now Commission) has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the dispute between the Member of Society and its Manager not excluded from the Consumer Jurisdiction.

11.   Moreover, it is also mentioned in the written version that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the opposite parties were unable to make the payment to complainant and even the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment. Meaning thereby the opposite parties are ready to refund the amount of complainant in installments. 

12. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the remaining amount of Redemption i.e. Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Redemption i.e. 10.5.2019 till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs and Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       7th Day of December, 2021 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member