Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 262

                                                                   Instituted on     : 27.07.2020

                                                                   Decided on       : 11.09.2023

Smt.Vinod Kumari age 45 years w/o Sh. Sajjan Kumar R/o H.No.362/34, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                      ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Sahara India Sector Office Rohtak 2^nd Floor Ganga Place Complex, Subhash Road, Rohtak Through its Sector Manager.
2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited Regd. Office-Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its Director/Concerned Official
3. SAHARAYAN Universal Multipurpose Society Limited. Regd. Office 195, Zone-1, Infront of DB Mall, MP Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Pin-462011. Through its concerned official.
4. Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, Chairman, Sahara India, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
5. Mr. OP Shrivastava, Dy Chairman, Sahara India, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024
6. Mr. Parshant Kumar Verma, Executive Director, Rastriya SAHARA Press, C-3, C-4, Sector-11, NOIDA(UP) PIN-201301.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Anil Balhara, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that opposite party no. 1 is Sector Office of Sahara India and opposite parties no. 2 & 3 are the societies in which opposite parties took deposits of complainant with the assurance to give more interest than the Nationalised Bank. Opposite parties no.4 & 5 are the main persons, who are responsible for day to day working of Sahara India. Further opposite party no. 6 is the relative of the opposite party no. 5 and he is main person who is acting on the directions of the opposite party no. 4 and 5 who is responsible in with holding the amount of complainant and other depositors and opposite parties no. 6 is building pressure on the workers and employees of Sahara India to force the consumers to re-invest their maturity amount in other schemes run by opposite parties. Opposite parties invited the complainant to deposit money in schemes run under the name of the opposite parties no. 2  & 3 through opposite party no. 1 on the planning and control of opposite parties no. 4 & 5. The complainant had deposited her hard earned money in different schemes which were launched by opposite parties with different names and under different societies. The detail of the Society name, schemes, amount, maturity date etc. are given below:-

It is further submitted that the officials of the opposite parties assured the complainant that all the payments will be made on date of maturity or on demand. All the payments were made by complainant at the office of opposite party no. 1. Complainant approached the office of opposite party no. 1 on several times and requested them to give his all deposited amount with interest. On that officials of opposite party no. 1 told that they were helpless in making payments to her due to non-availability of funds from opposite parties’ Head Office. They further told that they are only having authority to convert old certificates of consumers in new schemes and they have no source independently to make payment of complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to release the deposited amount  alongwith interest @18% p.a. from due date till the date of actual realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-  to the complainant.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply and submitted that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 are society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is a member of society.  Thus relation between the complainant and opposite party is of Member and Society. The complainant never approached the opposite parties and requested for release of maturity amount.  It is also submitted that the complainant did not provide any document as alleged by him, therefore the complainant is bound to deliver the documents to the opposite parties and after receiving the same the opposite parties shall be able to submit their reply. The opposite parties never assured the complainant that the amount shall be released within days. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% and compensation prayed by her. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on 06.02.2023.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties have availed several opportunities for filing evidence but has failed to do so. As such, evidence of opposite parties was closed vide order dated 23.06.2023 of this Commission.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.C1 to Ex. C7, complainant had deposited the amount explained above in para no.1 of this judgment under different Certificate Nos./Account Nos. through different transactions and the date of the maturity of the alleged amount is also different. After the maturity of accounts, complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount alongwith interest but the alleged amount has not been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, the opposite parties through their reply have submitted that the complainant has failed to fulfill the required formalities of payment. But to prove their contention, opposite parties have not filed any document and also failed to adduce their evidence, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties no.1 to 6 are liable to refund the alleged amount to the complainant. 

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to 6 jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount  of FDRs Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 in the following manner:

1. To pay the maturity amount of Ex.C1 amounting to Rs.123722/-  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 30.06.2023 to till its realization,
2. To pay the maturity amount of Ex.C2 amounting to Rs.80085/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 30.06.2023 to till its realization, maturity amount of Ex.C3 amounting to Rs.942304/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 30.06.2023 to till its realization,  maturity amount of Ex.C4 amounting to Rs.101513/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 30.06.2023 to till its realization, maturity amount of Ex. C5 amounting to Rs.384000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 29.02.2019 to till its realization, maturity amount of Ex. C6 amounting to Rs.212421/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 27.01.2019 to till its realization, Ex.C7 amounting to Rs.12000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 15.10.2013 to till its realization.
3. Opposite party No.1 to 6 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. 

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

11.09.2023

                                                                        ..................................................................

                                                                        Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        …………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.