Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/201/2019

Amandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kumar

15 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.201 of 2019.

Date of instt: 27.05.2019. 

                                                          Date of Decision: 15.09.2021

 

Amandeep Kumar son of Sh.Mohinder Pal, 433/10, Mohan Nagar, Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                          ……..Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

1.Sahara India Pariwar Amin Road, near Geeta Girl School, through its Concerned Officer.

 

2.Dev Kumar son of Sh.Mani Ram, resident of house No.2162, Ward No.10, Vashisht Colony, Near Vavyug School, District Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.             

 

Before         Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh.Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Pardeep Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Shishan Dutt Sharma Advocate for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 ex parte.

ORDER:

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Amandeep Kumar  against  Sahara India etc, the opposite parties.

2.                Brief  facts of the present complaint are that complainant  had made  a  SAHARA .C.ANOKHA RD  bearing account No.24795100734 with OP No.1 and deposited sum of Rs. 6000/-  on monthly basis from 26.08.2014 through OP No.2 and deposited Rs.2,88,000/- till 26.08.2018.At the time of opening of account with the  OPs, OPs had assured the complainant that upon completion of five years a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- will be paid to the complainant. A pass book has also been issued in the name of the complainant.  The Ops have paid the sum of Rs.2,03,000/- only instead of Rs.3,95,000/- to the complainant. The RDs mentioned above carries monthly interest and interest is payable at the time of maturity.  It is further submitted that on completion  of above said period, the complainant requested the OPs time and again to release the matured amount but the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The said act of the OPs amounts to fraud and deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to release the maturity amount of the RDs of Rs.1,47,000/- alongwith interest, compensation for the mental harassment and pain caused to the complainant and the litigation expenses.

 

3.       Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. The OPs have denied the contents regarding depositing of amount in the form of FDRs for want of knowledge. However, it is submitted that the complainant expressed his will to become member of the society and after understanding the terms and conditions of Sahara A select scheme he shared his money for furtherance of the objects of the society.  It is submitted that a member of the society is not a consumer. OP is a society and not a member. It is denied that OPs  ever denied  the  payment of the maturity scheme: Maturity shall be paid to the member account holder alongwith the interest as per the clause no.5 of the terms and conditions and he is not entitled to any additional interest.  No additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount, if taken after the scheduled period.  The complainant did not approached office.  It is denied that the OP is accepted deposits from the general public or  is covered under the Consume Protection Act ,rather the OP is a society and only members of the society can avail the benefit of the schemes, the person who is not a member has no right to participate in the schemes of the society.  It is also submitted that in case of any dispute between Cooperative Society and Member account holder the same shall be decided by an arbitration as per “Multi State Co-Operative Society Act, 2002.Arbitration proceedings and proceedings arising out of the award shall be  binding on both the parties. While denying all other allegations specifically, preliminary objections regarding concealment of facts, jurisdiction and that the matter can be decided by the Arbitration Court constituted under section 70 A and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.                The complainant in support of her case has filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered document  Ex.C-1  and closed her evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the case file.

 

7.                The Learned counsel for the complainant  has argued that the complainant  had made  SAHARA .C.ANOKHA RD  bearing account No.24795100734 with OP No.1 and deposited sum of Rs. 6000/-  on monthly basis from 26.08.2014 through OP No.2 and deposited Rs.2,88,000/- till 26.08.2018. At the time of opening of account with the  OPs, OPs had assured the complainant that upon completion of five years a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as per Ex.C-1. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the  Ops have only paid the sum of Rs.2,03,000/- to the complainant instead of Rs.3,95,000/-  as shown in mark A and have not paid the amount of Rs.1,92,000/- to the complainant. This amount has not been paid by the OP no.1 despite repeated requests which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

 

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs  while reiterating the submissions made in the complaint has argued that the complainant can receive the maturity amount as per clause 5 and no interest  can be claimed for the delayed period  and also and the said demand of interest was against the terms and conditions of clause 5 and complaint before the Consumer Commission is not maintainable  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view, the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant is not consumer is also devoid of any force because the complainant deposited the amount  with the OPs and he availed the services of the OPs. The contention of learned counsel for the OPs that the complaint if any can only be decided by the Arbitrator u/s 7-A  and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint are without any force because as per settled law remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is an additional remedy and can be availed by the complainant, if he does not wish to avail the relief under the Arbitration Act. The Ops have only paid the sum of Rs.2,03,000/- to the complainant as shown in Mark A  instead of Rs.3,95,000/- The Ops have paid Rs.2,03,000/- to the complainant  as per Ex.C-1 and the total amount  payable to the complainant comes to 3,95,000/- as per mark “A” and as such amount of Rs.1,92,000/- remains to be paid by the OP No.1 to the complainant and for non payment by the OP No.1 to the complainant amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP No.2 and as such the complainant is entitled to relief.

 

10.              For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP-1 to pay the  remaining amount of Rs.1,92,000/-  (as shown in   Ex.C-1 and Mark-A)  to the complainant  alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order i.e. 15.09.2021 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to sum of Rs.5,000/- in lump sum  as compensation for the mental harassment and  litigation   expenses. The OP No.1  is   further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:15.09.2021                                                     (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                  President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)         

 Member                                     Member.