Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/182/2019

Irshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kumar

20 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.182 of 2019.

Date of instt: 13.05.2019. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 20.07.2021.

 

Irshad  son of Sh.Mehbub resident of Jyoti 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 OPs.

ORDER     

 

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

2.            Brief  facts of the present complaint are that complainant  had made  a  SAHARA .M.BENEFIT RD  bearing account No.24795600978  with OP No.1 and deposited sum of Rs. 4500/-  from 31..12.2015  on monthly basis through OP No.2 and deposited Rs.1,53,000/- till 31.12.2018.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.1,71,860/- will be paid to the complainant. A pass book has also been issued in the name of 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.1,53,000/- 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 her 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 documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 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  a  SAHARA .M.BENEFIT RD  bearing account No.23794800865 with OP No.1 and deposited sum of Rs. 1500/-  on monthly basis through OP No.2 and deposited Rs.90,000/- till 31.10.2018.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.1,18,000/- will be paid to the complainant. A pass book has also been issued in the name of 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 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 has not come forward to receive the amount on maturity and the complainant did not approached their office immediately after maturity  rather he approached after considerable delay and demanded payment of additional interest for the delayed period also and the said demand of interest was against the terms and conditions of clause 4 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 that the complainant is also entitled to interest even after maturity of the FDRs amount because amount of the complainant remained with the OPs and they used the same. Further, 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 in the FDRs 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. Therefore, the complaint before this Commission is maintainable and this Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the present complaint. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief and the OP No.1 is  liable to pay the maturity  amount  of    RD bearing account No.24794000865(as shown in Ex.C-1) alongwith interest alongwith compensation for the mental harassment suffered by him at the hands of the OPs. The OP No.2 is merely an agent and no deficiency in services is made out against OP No.2.

 

10.            For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay the maturity  amount  of RD bearing account No.24795600978(as shown in Ex.C-1)  alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.05.2019 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and Rs.5000/- as 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 OP No.1. The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:20.07.2021                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.