BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 56 of 2019
Date of Institution : 01.02.2019
Date of Decision : 13.8.2019.
Shimla aged about 70 years widow of Sh. Harbans Lal, resident of Gali No.5, Gobind Nagar, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sahara India Pariwar, Branch Located at adjoining Jyani Hospital, Near State Bank of India Main Branch, 2nd Floor, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Sahara India Pariwar, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapporthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024 through Authorized Person.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. Subhash Chander, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant got deposited her saving amount received after death of her husband with the opposite parties in the shape of eight FDRs of different amount on different dates and op no.1 i.e. local branch of op no.2 issued different receipts and certificates after depositing the amount and the maturity values of the same are Rs.2,32,600/- i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.32,600/- as interest up to the date of maturity i.e. 29.9.2017 and 30.12.2017. It is further averred that ops agreed to pay interest @12% per annum compoundable interest half yearly rests. At the time of depositing of the amount, the Manager and the agents of the ops assured the complainant that the amount deposited will be definitely repaid alongwith agreed rate of interest. The complainant alongwith her family members and friends visited the ops on many occasions but they failed to make the payment so far and are lingering the matter on one pretext or another. The complainant has fulfilled all the terms and conditions for getting refund of the amount but the ops intentionally have lingered on the matter. It is further averred that complainant has also come to know that the ops have obtained the money from the complainant by playing fraud with her. That ops are legally bound to make the payment of above said FDRs and there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops and the complainant has apprehension that the ops may usurp the amount. It is further averred that no case has so far been filed by the complainant in any court/ Forum except the application under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Sirsa but the same could not be decided on merits due to retirement of Chairman of PLA, Sirsa and therefore, the complainant has withdrawn the said application on 20.12.2018 with permission to file fresh petition. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that complainant has arrayed Sahara India Pariwar as opposite parties. In this regard it is submitted that “Sahara India Pariwar” is not a legal entity and it does not enjoy any legal rights. As such no complaint is maintainable against Sahara India Pariwar. Sahara India Pariwar is mere a symbolic name of Group of companies and societies and legally no suit or complaint is maintainable against those which are not legal entity. Therefore, due to mis joinder of unnecessary party, present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further submitted that complainant is a member of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and she opened account under the Scheme of Society, as such for any suit or complaint Society is necessary party, but the complainant has not arrayed Society in her petition. Thus, present complaint is not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary party. That the complainant is not a consumer of the ops. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the ops. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited is duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is a member of the Society. Thus relation between the complainant and the ops is of Member and Society for which a separate Tribunal has been constituted. Therefore, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that apart from above, if the complainant who is a member of the Society has any grievance or dispute with the Society, she is bound to refer her dispute before Arbitrator as per arbitration agreement under clause 11 of the scheme. On merits, the contents of the complaint are denied. It is submitted that Society never refused to make the payment. But it is the complainant who made demand of additional amount which was not payable. The complainant herself failed to fulfill the required formalities of payment that is why the payment could not be made. It is further submitted that as per clause 4 of terms and conditions of scheme, no additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount if taken after the scheduled period. The complainant willfully refused to receive the payable amount and made demand of additional amount which was not payable. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount except the agreed maturity amount. There is no agreement for payment of future interest. It is further submitted that present complaint is not maintainable because Section 22 (C) (2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 imposes bars to invoke the jurisdiction of any court regarding same dispute. It is further submitted that complainant after understanding the bylaws and objects of the society obtained membership bearing No.24841600111, thereafter she opted to share money for a period of 18 months under the terms and conditions of scheme. It is further submitted that clause 4 of the terms and conditions of Sahara A select scheme provides that “After completion of 18 months from the date of opening of account maturity shall be paid to the member account holder alongwith the interest as per the account settlement chart. No additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount, if taken after the scheduled period.” It is further submitted after maturity, the complainant did not approach the office immediately rather she approached after considerable delay and demanded payment of additional interest for delayed period also which was against the terms and conditions. She failed to fulfill the required formalities of payment. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.P1 and copies of receipts/ certificates Ex.P2 to Ex.P9.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved on record that complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the ops on 29.3.2016 vide five receipts of Rs.17,000/- each and one of Rs.15,000/- by way of FDRs for a period of 18 months and the maturity date of the said FDRs was 29.9.2017. Similarly, she had also deposited another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the ops on 30.6.2016 vide two receipts of Rs.50,000/- each by way of FDRs for a period of 18 months and the maturity date of said FDRs was 30.12.2017. After the maturity of the said FDRs, the complainant visited the ops on many occasions and also fulfilled the requirements for getting refund of the maturity amounts but the opposite parties have failed to make refund of the maturity amounts to the complainant, as such the complainant is entitled to the maturity amounts alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of maturity till actual realization.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the ops has contended that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the ops. As per clause 4 of terms and conditions of scheme, no additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount if taken after the scheduled period. The complainant willfully refused to receive the payable amount and made demand of additional amount which was not payable. The complainant is not entitled to get any additional interest.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove her case has furnished her affidavit Ex.P1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also tendered in evidence documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P9, the FDRs receipts, the details thereof, are as under:-
(i) Certificate No.925001592996 dated 29.3.2016, principal amount Rs.17,000/-, maturity amount of
Rs.19771/- and date of maturity was 29.9.2017.
(ii) Certificate no.925001592997 dated 29.3.2016, principal amount Rs.17,000/-, maturity amount of
Rs.19771/- and date of maturity was 29.09.2017.
(iii) Certificate no. 925001592998 dated 29.3.2016, principal amount Rs.17000/-, maturity amount
Rs.19771/- and date of maturity was 29.9.2017.
(iv) Certificate no.925001592999 dated 29.3.2016, principal amount Rs.17000/-, maturity amount
Rs.19771/- and date of maturity was 29.09.2017
(v) Certificate no.925001592995 dated 29.3.2016, principal amount Rs.17,000/-, maturity amount
Rs.19771/- and date of maturity was 29.9.2017.
(vi) Certificate no.925001593000 dated 29.3.2016, principal
amount Rs.15000/-, maturity amount Rs.17445/- and date of maturity was29.09.2017.
(vii) Certificate no.925002618426 dated 30.6.2016, principal
amount Rs.50000/-, maturity amount Rs.58150/- and date of maturity was 30.12.2017.
(viii) Certificate no.925002618427 dated 30.6.2016, principal amount Rs.50000/-, maturity amount
Rs.58150/- and date of maturity was 30.12.2017.
The above said receipts/ certificates prove that the amount was deposited by the complainant with the ops in fixed deposit. On the other hand, the ops have not led any evidence except tendering of written statement. Ops have not furnished even affidavit of any of the officials of the ops in order to depose in support of their defence plea nor they have placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that they have made payment of the maturity amount of the FDRs to the complainant or they have ever made any offer to the complainant to receive the payment. Non payment of the amount of FDRs after the date of maturity by the ops to the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of ops.
9. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The ops are further directed to pay interest at the contractual rate of interest which was agreed between the parties from the date of maturity of the FDRs till the date of filing of the complaint and they are further directed to pay interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated: 13.08.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
