Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/38/2020

Ram Kanwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Pariwar Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balkar Singh & Suresh Saran Adv.

28 Sep 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Ram Kanwar son of Sh.Baksha Ram aged 73 years.
2. (i) Vijayata aged about 36 years D/o Ram Kanwar

(ii) Madhu aged about 33 years D/o Ram Kanwar

Both LR’s of late Savitri Devi resident of Kanwar’s Cottage, Prem Nagar Colony, Gali No.3, Dhani Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri (Haryana)-127306.

3. Suman d/o Ram Kanwar aged 42 years

All residents of Kanwar’s Cottage, Prem Nagar Colony, Gali No.3, Dhani Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri (Haryana)-127306.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1. Sahara India Pariwar Private Limited, through its Director, Registered Office: SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160022.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited through its Director Registered Office:195, Zone-1, in front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Madya Predesh, Bhopal.
3. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited through its Director Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan-1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
4. Sahara Y Select through its Director Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan-1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

…..Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                         MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                         MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Present through Video Conferencing:-

                         Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

                         Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the opposite parties.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                    It is the case of the complainants that they have invested their life savings, in the three schemes, run by the opposite parties. They were provided 33 investment certificates amounting to Rs.12,53,000/-. It has been stated that after maturity date(s) of the said certificates, the complainants approached the opposite parties, a number of times, for release of the maturity amounts but they failed to do so and on the other hand, are forcing them to continue reinvesting the same. It has been stated that legal notice dated 03.12.2019, Annexure C-2, served upon the opposite parties also did not yield any result. Contentions raised by the complainants in that regard, in para nos.5 to 10 of their complaint are reproduced hereunder:-

“5.     That on 03.12.2016 complainant no 2 and 3 individually invested in three fixed deposit schemes of Sahara Y. Select of Rs.1,01,000/- each and complainant no.1 invested on 03.12.2016 three Sahara Y. Select fixed deposit scheme of Rs.1,01,000/ each and on 03.12.2018 invested in one Sahara Y. Select fixed deposit scheme of Rs.50,000/-. Likewise the total amount invested in the Sahara Y. Select Scheme is Rs.9,59,000/- (As per table no.1 in Legal Notice (Annexure C-2));

6.       That complainant no.1 invested in 21 fixed deposit scheme of Sahara Universal Multipurpose Society Limited on 06.05.2015, he invested in one fixed deposited for Rs.17,000/- and on 06.05.2015 two investments of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, on 30.12.2015 Thirteen investment of Rs.19,000/- each and on 31.12.2005 one investment of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore the total investment made by Complainant no.1 is Rs.4,69,000/- (As per table no.2 in Legal Notice (Annexure C-2))

7.       That on 13.02.2012 complainant no.1 has invested in one fixed deposited scheme of Sahara Q. Shop Unique products Range Limited of Rs.4,00,000/- (As per table no.3 in Legal Notice (Annexure C-2)). The copies of receipts of above mentioned fixed deposit scheme are annexed herewith as Annexure C-1  (colly).

8.       That the complainants have approached the Ops a number of time requesting the compliance of payment of the due amount on maturity but the Ops have evaded the release of maturity amount of fixed deposited schemes and directed them to continue re-investing the maturity amount.

9.       That total value of maturity of above fixed deposit scheme is Rs.37,03 100/- calculated with the interest rate of 24% per annum from the date of respective deposit as assured by the Ops at the time of deposit in the schemes till 30.12.2019. The respondents are further liable to pay the interest on the maturity value of each FD at the rate of 9% per annum after 30.12.2019 till the date of realization.

10.     That the complainants have issued legal notice on 03.12.2019 to the Ops but same remains un-answered till date of filing the present complaint. A copy of the legal notice is annexed here with as Annexure C-2.

2.           In the joint written reply filed by the opposite parties, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, with regard to purchase of the investment certificates in question, by the complainants, as annexed by them with this consumer complaint, following objections were raised by them:-
   1. that this Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.
   2. that merely on the ground that opposite parties no.2 to 4 are having their registered office at Chandigarh does not give right to the complainants to file this complaint before this Commission at Chandigarh.
   3. that since the complainants were members of opposite party no.2-society, as such, consumer complaint is not maintainable in the face of provisions of Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
   4. that in the face of existence of the provisions of settlement of dispute through arbitration, this consumer complaint is not maintainable.
   5. that the complainants failed to move demand application and also did not complete the formalities to get the maturity amount, as a result whereof the same was not paid to them.
   6. that it was clearly told to the complainants that they would get interest as per terms and conditions of the agreement/ application.
   7. that the complainants were free to purchase  products every month for a period of 6 years from opposite party no.3 against the payments made by them and
   8. that the complainants never approached the opposite parties  for release of the maturity amount.

3.           This Commission afforded adequate opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, by way of filing affidavit. In pursuance thereof, the parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and also produced numerous documents including written arguments by the parties, wherein they have reiterated their contentions.
4.           We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record of the case, including the written arguments filed by the parties, very carefully.
5.           First, we will deal with the objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that since the complainants have invested their money with the Society-opposite party no.2, as such, they being members of the said society did not fall within the definition of consumer. We do not agree with the contention raised. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that a dispute between the society and its members can be entertained by the consumer commission. In the case of The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co operative Agricultural Credit Society v/s M Lalitha (Dead) through LRs (Appeal (civil)  92 of 1998), decided on 11/12/2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that  disputes between a cooperative society and its member regarding deficiency in service can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, in its order dated 13.04.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreem Court in Virender Jain v. Alaknanda Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 383, it was held that disputes raised by members of the society can be decided by the Consumer Fora. In this view of the matter, plea taken by the opposite parties stands rejected and it is held that this complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
6.           Now coming to the objection raised with regard to jurisdiction of this Commission on the ground that arbitration clause is contained in the terms and conditions of the contract, it may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even the Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 against order dated 13.02.2018, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 10.12.2018. As such, objection raised by opposite parties, in this regard, stands rejected.
7.           Now coming to the objection raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, it may be stated here that it is well settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be a part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the Court/ Tribunal/Fora within the territorial limits of which that occurs. In the present case, it is evident that legal notice dated 03.12.2019, Annexure C-2 was served upon the office of opposite party no.1 which is registered office of opposite parties no.2 to 4, located at Chandigarh. The fact that the registered office of opposite parties no.2 to 4 is located at Chandigarh, has not been disputed by the opposite parties. However, in para no.15 of their reply, it has been stated by the opposite parties that the mere fact that registered office of opposite parties no.2 to 4 is located at Chandigarh is not a ground to usurp the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Furthermore, counsel for the opposite parties, while relying upon the ratio of law laid down in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, decided on 20.10.2009 (Supreme Court of India) also contended that mere presence of branch office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh, did not entitle the complainants to file this complaint before this Commission at Chandigarh.

                   We respect the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra). However, in the present case, it is not the branch office, yet, on the other hand, it is the registered office of the company, which is located in the territorial limits of this Commission. It is pertinent to mention here that the Registered office of a company is the main office of the Company/Society, where all official communications pertaining to a Company/Society is maintained and handled. In addition to a registered office, a company/society can have its corporate office or administrative office or branch office or factory, etc. A branch office is mere an extension of the parent company/registered office and can engage in core activities like sales and contracts. Critically, the branch office is not a separate legal entity from its Registered Office. The branch office is not able to independently participate in the general business transactions of the Registered Office/Head Office. It performs support and implementation-related tasks without having any individual business discretion and is entirely dependent on the Registered Office. In other words, a branch office is mere a location, other than the main Registered office. A branch office will typically have a  who will report directly to, and answer to, management members at the Registered Office. Thus, in the present case, since the registered office of the opposite parties is located at Chandigarh and also the fact that legal notice was also sent to the said office at Chandigarh, which remained unanswered, as such, it is held that this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. In this view of the matter, reliance placed by counsel for the opposite parties on Sonic Surgical’s case (supra) is misplaced.

8.           There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the fact that the complainants were provided investment certificates referred to above. It is also not in dispute that even the amount deposited by the complainants have not been refunded to the complainants out of the said investment certificates, what to speak of payment of maturity amount(s).

                   We have very minutely gone through the said investment certificates Annexure C-1 colly. and found that it has been clearly mentioned therein that the members contributing may be eligible to get return on contribution ranging from 10% to 15% p.a. Furthermore, on these investment certificates, it is also found that the details pertaining to the amount deposited by the complainants; account nos.; maturity amount; and the date of maturity thereof are also mentioned. Thus, from the contents of the said certificates it is crystal clear that the investments were got made by the opposite parties from the complainants under the belief that they will get return thereon by way of interest ranging from 10% to 15% p.a. which was payable to them by the maturity dates mentioned against respective investment certificates. However, despite that, the opposite parties failed to make payment of maturity amount(s) to the complainants, as a result whereof they were forced to enter into this litigation. The opposite parties have failed to convince this Commission, as to why they failed to honour the commitments made by them by way of investment certificates referred to above, though legal notice was also sent to them by the complainants. Not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by the opposite parties to prove that they demanded any document from the complainants or they asked them to complete any formalities, to make payment of the maturity amount(s), after the maturity of the said investment certificates or on receipt of legal notice referred to above. Mere bald assertions raised by the opposite parties  in their written reply have no significant value in the eyes of law.

                   At the same time, it is also held that once it has been in a very candid manner, mentioned on the said investment certificates that the complainants are entitled to get interest on their investments, which was payable on the respective maturity dates, as such, plea taken by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainants were entitled to only purchase of various products like hospitality, food and beverages, gold jewellery, electronic items etc. of the invested amount, being devoid of merit stands rejected. Even otherwise, in para nos.7, 8, and 11 of their written reply, the opposite parties have themselves stated that the maturity amount(s) could not be released to the complainants, as they did not complete the required formalities. However, as stated above, there is nothing on record to prove that the opposite parties asked the complainants to complete any formalities to get their maturity amount even at the time of maturity of the said certificates or on receipt of legal notice. In this view of the matter, the opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the situation on bald assertions.

9.            By not making the payment of maturity amount(s) and on the other hand, utilizing the hard earned money of the complainants, the opposite parties are deficient in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice, which has caused a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainants, for which they are liable to compensate them, separately.
10.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
    1. To pay the entire maturity amount(s) (invested amount and maturity amount together) to the complainants, as reflected against each investment certificates, alongwith interest @9% p.a. thereon, starting from the matured date(s) thereof, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of  certified copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall be further liable to pay penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

                 However, it is made clear that the investment certificate(s), on which the maturity date(s) and amount(s) of maturity are not mentioned, the opposite parties shall refund the invested amount alongwith simple interest @12% p.a. on the said invested amount from the date of investment thereof, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of  certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties shall be further liable to pay penal interest @15% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants and also for deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of  passing of this order till realization.

11.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.09.2021

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

          [PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Sd/-

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

 Rg