BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 94 of 2020
Date of Institution: 12.02.2020
Date of Decision: 24.05.2022.
Aman Gupta aged about 48 years son of Sh. Chabil Dass Gupta, resident of H. No. 431, Street No. 07, Agarsain Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. 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, Kapporthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024 through authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…….………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs) on the averments that he got deposited his saving amount with ops in the shape of as many as three FDRs of different amount on different dates and op no.1 i.e. local branch of op no.2 under ‘Sahara Special Fix Scheme’ issued different receipts and certificates. The maturity values of the same are Rs.86,897/- i.e. Rs.73,450/- as principal amount and Rs.13,447/- as interest upto the date of maturity i.e. 29.06.2019 and 11.07.2019 and details of all FDs alongwith maturity value are as under:-
Sr. No.Certificate No. & date Date of Maturity Maturity amount
- 787000495457 11.07.2019 Rs.21,953/-
Dt. 11.01.2018
- 787000495458
- Dt. 29.12.2017 29.06.2019 Rs.36,977/-
- 787000495413
Dt. 29.12.201729.06.2019Rs.27,967/-
It is further averred that ops agreed to pay interest @11.5% per annum compoundable interest with half yearly rests. The total amounts have been lying deposited with the ops and at the time of deposit, the Manager and agents of ops assured him that amount deposited will be definitely repaid alongwith agreed rate of interest. The complainant alongwith his 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 the another. The complainant has fulfilled all the terms and conditions for getting refund of the maturity amount but despite that ops are not paying the amount to him and he has come to know that ops have obtained the money from him by playing a fraud with him after making false promises and assurances and now intentionally delaying the payment. The ops are legally bound to make the payment of the above said FDRs and there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops and complainant has apprehension that ops may usurp the amount deposited by him. The complainant is legally entitled to get maturity amount of above said FDRs alongwith future interest as per agreement otherwise he is legally entitled to get the money alongwith interest @24% per annum. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops filed their joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer of Ops as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and Ops. The ops 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 ops is of Member and society. Therefore, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. That op no.1 has not entered into any agreement with the complainant or received any contribution from the complainant to provide any service. Moreover, no company exists with name of op no.2. Therefore, complaint is defective for mis-joinder of unnecessary party and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. If, the member of the society has any grievance or dispute with the society, he/ she is bound to refer the dispute before the Arbitrator as per Clause 11 of the terms and condition of the contribution of the scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited. That complainant is not the consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant made the contribution in the scheme for earning profit, therefore, the contribution made by complainant is a purely commercial transaction and does not come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is submitted that 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. The complainant being member of Society with membership no. 24841500718 had chosen scheme A Select to make investment in furtherance of the objects of Society. He himself approached the company to take good benefit. The payment, if any, was strictly payable as per terms and conditions of the contribution. It is further submitted that under Sahara Credit Society Scheme, there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. The complainant has made false and baseless statement. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.86,897/-. The complainant’s accounts are still continuing under the terms and conditions of scheme and he is getting benefits of scheme and the ops never refused to provide its services to the complainant. It is further submitted that Clause 10 of the Contribution scheme Bye-laws, Rules and Regulation of Society is binding upon the member complainant. The member can avail the benefits of contribution as per terms and conditions of scheme. That for getting refund the member has to surrender original certificate and after that on the date of payment, the member is to be present at the office with Identity proof for verification and to sign the discharge voucher. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint, the answering ops were rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/ installment, but he willfully refused to receive the same in part. Due to the above reason, payment could not be made. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of certificates Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of ops be read into their evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on file copies of certificates as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. From the copies of certificates Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, it is evident that complainant deposited total amount of Rs.73,450/- with the ops and on maturity, he was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.86,897/- from ops and above said FDRs have already been matured in the months of June/ July 2019. However, despite maturity, the ops have failed to make payment of the maturity amounts to the complainant. From the perusal of evidence led by complainant, it is established on record that he is consumer of ops and they were under liability to pay maturity amount to the complainant. More so, ops have not led any evidence to rebut the evidence of complainant and therefore, evidence of complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, ops are bound to discharge their liability by making payment of maturity amount to the complainant which they have failed to discharge on maturity.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that as per scheme of the company, complainant is not entitled to file a consumer complaint rather he is bound to refer his dispute before the Arbitrator as per arbitration agreement. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has contended since remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, so complaint filed by present complainant is very much maintainable. We found no substance in the plea of learned counsel for ops as 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 ops have not placed any document in support of their version. Non payment of amount of complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of ops and as such complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses from the ops besides maturity amount.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.86,897/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e.12.02.2020 till actual realization to the complainant. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment including 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: 24.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
