BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 93 of 2022
Date of Institution: 21.01.2022
Date of Decision: 17.01.2023.
Raj Kumar son of Shri Radhe Shyam, aged 41 years, resident of Gali Neki Ram Wali, Ther Mohalla Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Sahara India Pariwar cum Sahara India Cooperative Society Ltd., Branch Located at adjoining Jyani Hospital, Near State Bank of India, Main Branch, 2nd Floor, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. Sahara India Cooperative Society Ltd., Reg. Office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024 through its authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Narendra Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
This complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties seeking payment of Rs.1,54,495/- as maturity amount alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from ops.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant deposited his saving amount with the ops in the shape of two FDRs and monthly installments of different amount with op no.1 i.e. local branch of op no.2 under Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Super BB Society Limited and Sahara A Select Schemes vide receipts and certificates issued by ops, the detail of which is as under:-
(i) Account No. 24844200863 dated 1.5.2012 of Rs.1,20,000/- (5000X60) maturity date was 1.5.2017 (Out of this amount i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- complainant has taken loan of Rs.63,000/- ).
(ii) Account No. 24847801077 dated 7.12.2019 of Rs.85,000/- maturity amount Rs.97,495/- maturity date was 7.6.2021.
3. It is further averred that after maturity ops have failed to make payment of the maturity amount to the complainant despite his several requests and visits and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, initially opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections qua jurisdiction and maintainability etc. On merits, it is submitted that ops never made request to reinvest the amount and complainant himself approached the office of ops for further investment. The ops are multipurpose co-operative society registered under Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The ops are not collecting the funds from General Public for the purpose of investment. Rather the members of the society made contribution in the society. It is further submitted that complainant being member of Society with membership number had chosen scheme A Select to make investment in furtherance of the objects of the Society. That under Sahara Credit Society Scheme, there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. For any dispute between the Society and its members, consumer complaint is not maintainable and this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try present dispute. It is further submitted that complainant’s accounts are still continuing under the terms and conditions of scheme and he is getting benefits of schemes. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. On 13.12.2022, when the case was fixed for evidence of complainant none appeared on behalf of ops and therefore, ops were proceeded against exparte.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and receipts/ certificates Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. From Ex.C3 it is proved on record that complainant deposited monthly installments of Rs.5000/- each with ops from 01.05.2012 to 21.04.2014 and as such he deposited total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with ops and he also obtained loan of Rs.63,000/- from ops against this deposit. Further from certificate Ex.C5 it is also evident that on 07.12.2019 complainant deposited Rs.85,000/- with ops in fixed deposit and on maturity on 7.6.2021, he was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.97,495/- from ops. However, after maturity of amounts, the ops have failed to refund the maturity amounts to the complainant. The ops despite appearance have failed to rebut the evidence of complainant and ultimately opted to be proceeded against exparte. The averments made by ops in their written version have not been proved by ops by leading cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, simple version of ops without any supporting evidence cannot be relied upon. The ops have not proved on record that ops have ever given benefit of the contribution or any share of the profit of the amount deposited by complainant to him being Member of the Society as alleged by ops. Rather it is proved on record that complainant is entitled to claim his amount after maturity from the ops which he claimed several times from the ops but ops have failed to return maturity amount to the complainant. The remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and complainant can opt for this remedy, so it cannot be said that present complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, ops have not placed on file any scheme or arbitration agreement executed between the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 decided on 23.04.2013 has held that dispute between Member and Society can be decided by Consumer Forum. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the case in hand and as such it is held that present complaint is maintainable against ops under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. More so, as per Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as well as law laid down by our own Hon’ble Apex Court, the objections taken by ops in written statement are not at all maintainable and ops are liable to refund the amount of complainant. There is nothing on file to disbelieve the version of complainant and that he is not entitled to the claimed maturity amount of Rs.1,54,495/-. Non payment of amount of complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of ops.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,54,495/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of maturity till actual realization to the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 17.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
