Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/71

Anita Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Singh,Adv

08 Jan 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                                                              Consumer Complaint No.71 of 2019

                                                                                    Date of institution: 12.07.2019

                                                                                   Date of Decision: 08.01.2021

 

Anita Kumari @ Anita Malik aged about44 years wife of Sh. Naveen Malik, resident of House No.363, GianiZail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Sahara Prime City Limited, through its authorized signatory/agent, Beant Singh Aman Nagar, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar

 

2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, through its Authorized Signatory/Agent, Beant Singh Aman Nagar, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:     Sh. Surinder Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Nitin Sharma, Adv. counsel for OPs

               

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground On the ground that CC with the intention of buying a house around Chandigarh in the month of January 2005 was contacted by the O.Ps whohad floated a scheme in the name of Sahara City Home, Chandigarh. It was disclosed by the OPs that scheme is floated with the intention to provide cheaper houses to the general public on no profit no loss basis.

2.     It is alleged that the OP No.1 disclosed the CC that they had acquired about 200 Acre of land to start Sahara City House in Chandigarh. Even CLU has been procured and construction was going to start. Accordingly, the CC had booked two houses of two bedrooms of Type-B by giving an amount of Rs.1,83,000/-  & Rs.91,800/- for each house on 31.3.2005. Subsequently, the OP No.1 allotted control Nos. 26351200082 & 26351200083, respectively to the CC. The signatures of the CC were taken by the OP No.1 on various documents on the pretext of completing the formalities.

3.     Thereafter, the CC was again asked to deposit Rs.1,83,000/- and Rs.91,800/-  for each house on 13.1.2007 as second installment. It is alleged that lateron OP 1 disclosed that the project cannot be materialized on account of government non cooperative policies and litigation etc and asked the CC to opt for transferring her advance amount in any other existing project of Sahara City Homes at the rate prevailing in the city subject to the availability of units in that city or the CC may opt for cancellation of the homes and seek refund with interest @ to the tune of 8% per annum. On the advice of OP No.1, CC gave the option of transferring her advance amount to other existing project of Sahara City Homes, which cities were to come up at a longer distance of Chandigarh and even the rates of the house were found in excess. It is alleged that under compelling circumstances the CC had opted for the second option. Thereafter the Ops disclosed that till 7.12.2015, the total amount of the CC which comes to Rs.6,26,000/- and 3,13,000/- for each house but at the same time the OP No.1 had no money to refund on account of freezing of the accounts by the Sahara Group and promised to return the amount after 18 months to the CC through its sister concern the OP No.2 and for that purpose the OP 2 will issue two FDRs bearing No.925-001318416 dated 07.12.2015 and bearing No.925-001318417 dated 07.12.2015 to the CC. Under compelling circumstances, the CC had agreed to the proposal of the Ops accordingly OP2 issued two FDRsbearing No. 925-001318416 dated 07.12.2015 and bearing No.925-001318417 dated 07.12.2015, respectively, which were matured on 7.6.2017, as such the Ops became entitled to the total amount of Rs.7,38,680/- and Rs.3,69,340/- each. It is again alleged that at the time of issuance of FDRs, OP2 had taken signatures of the CC on various documents in order to complete their formalities. On 7.6.2017, even the FDRs got matured CC demanded his amount along with interest @12% per annum on whole amount from 7.6.2017 but Ops put off the matter on one pretext to the other.

4.      Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. to fail to return the amount of the CC has sought the following relief:-

OPs be asked to pay Rs.7,38,680/- i.e. Rs.3,69,340/- of each house/control/.FDR and further sought Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with 12% interest on amount of Rs.8,38,680/- from 07.06.2017 along with Rs.70,000/- as cost of litigation.

5.       In reply, initially Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Sector Manager of the Ops appeared but has chosen not to file any reply on behalf of OP No.1. The OP No.2 in its reply has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that it was the CC who contacted the Ops to become the member of the society and had obtained the membership of the society and CC is the member of the society and cannot term herself as the consumer of the society. Since he contributed her money in furtherance of the objects of the society. Even the maintainability of the present complaint before this commission is also challenged. It is alleged that the dispute is between the members of the society, therefore, in light of law laid down by various courts, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Only the Arbitrator as per the Arbitration Agreement can settle the dispute among the parties.

6.       In para-wise reply, it is averred that the CC is to prove the averments of para No.2 to Para No.8. It is alleged that the OP No.1 is a separate identity and the OP No.2 has no concern with the transaction between the CC and OP No.1. The OP No.2 has no knowledge of the alleged transaction between the OP NO.1 and the CC. It is alleged that she had opted a. Select Scheme and she shared Rs.3,13,000/- vide each account No.26355601025 & 26355601026 on 07.12.2015 for 18 months at Ropar office of Society. Before opting this scheme the CC duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme and then submitted signed application forms to share in furtherance of the objects of Society. Moreover, the Opposite party never refused to refund the maturity amount as per the terms of agreement. But the complainant herself refused to receive the amount which was being paid and she willfully neither surrendered the original certificate nor submitted prescribed application form of refund, as such, the complainant herself solely liable. It is further submitted that without fulfilling the required formalities of refund, payment could not be made. It is further alleged that there is no consumer dispute rather if any dispute exists the same is between the Society and its Member, which can be resolved under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

7.       It is further alleged that the complainant before opting the scheme Sahara A. Select has duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. Clause-4 of the terms and conditions of the scheme provides as under:-

          “4. Maturity:

After completion of 18 months from the date of opening of account Maturity shall be paid to the member account holder along with the interest as per the account settlement chart. No additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount, if taken after the scheduled period.

As per the above conditions no additional interest is payable if the maturity is taken after scheduled period. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get additional interest over maturity amount.

That it is submitted that 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. The complainant’s demand the additional interest was against the terms and conditions of clause-4. As such, the complainant was not entitled to get any additional interest. Society was ready to make the payment of maturity amount as per clause-4 but the complainant willfully refused to receive the payment maturity amount. It is submitted that for getting payment member is bound to submit application form for demand of payment along with original certificate and other documents required by the Society for verification.

Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.       It is pertinent to mention here that the reply of the OP No.2 is not verified and it is not mentioned, who has signed the version of the OP No.2. Even the name of the person is not mentioned in the reply for the reason best known to them only.

9.       The CC in support of her claim tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1/A reiterating the averments of the complaint. Further the CC has submitted various receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 issued by the Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation. Though, the OP No.1 had not filed any version but had filed the evidence/affidavit of one Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Sector Branch Manager of OP No.1. However, another affidavit is filed by Sh. Abhishek Sharma, as Ex.OP2, reiterating the version of OP No.2 in the affidavit.

During the pendency of the petition, two applications were also moved by the O.Ps. for the dismissal of the complaint etc., which were kept pending and is decided along with this order.

10.     After perusal of the complaint as well as the version of the OP No.2 and the evidence on record, we feel that CC has brought sufficient evidence on record to prove that the OP No.1 floated a scheme to construct houses in or around Chandigarh known as Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh for providing cheaper houses in or around Chandigarh to the peoples and told the CC that they have acquired 200 acres of land for Sahara City Homes for that purpose. Even the CLU has been procured by them and construction is going to start soon. On the assurance of the OP No.1 CC accordingly booked two houses of two bedrooms, Type B and paid initially Rs. 1,83,000/- & Rs.91,800/- for each house on 31.3.2005 and was allotted control Nos. 26351200082 & 26351200083,respectively by the OP NO.1 to the CC. Thereafter, the CC was again deposited Rs.1,83,000/- and Rs.93800/- for each house on 13.1.2007 as second installment. It is also on the file that lateron the OP No.1 disclosed that the project could not be materialized on account of government non cooperation and litigation and gave an option to the CC for transferring their advance amount to any other existing project in the Sahara City Homes on the rate prevailing at that time but subject to availability of the units etc. The CC found the option of transferring her advance amount to any other existing project in Sahara City Homes under compelling circumstances and even opted for refund. It is specifically disclosed in the complaint that on 7.12.2015, the CC was told that their amounts comes to the tune of Rs.6,26,000/- and Rs.3,13,000/- for each house respectively and OP No.1 had no money to pay due to freezing of account of Sahara Group and they will return the amount of Rs.7,38,680/- and Rs.3,69,340/- for each house after 18 months if CC invest the money in the sister concern of the OP No.1 i.e. OP No.2, who in return will issue two FDRs to the CC of this amount. It is in the complaint that under compelling circumstances, the CC had to agree to the proposal of the Ops and subsequently, OP2 issued two FDR bearing No.925-001318416 dated 07.12.2015 and bearing No.925-001318417 dated 07.12.2015, which were to be matured on 7.6.2015 and on maturity the CC was entitled to the amount of Rs.7,38,680/- and Rs.3,69,340/- each. It is time and again was alleged by the CC in her complaint that she was made to sign a number of papers by the Ops. We have also considered the version of the OP2, it is pertinent to mention here that OP1 has chosen not to file any version despite the fact that the same advocates is representing both the Ops. There is no explanation why the OP 1 has not filed any version on their behalf. This further shows the malafide intention of the Ops. It is writ-large on the file that the Ops in order to suppressed the true and correct facts have intentionally did not file any reply against the allegations of the CC from the side of OP1. The CC had time and again has stated in her complaint that OP No.1 & OP No.2 are sister concern. It is important to mention here that even in the reply of the OP2 nothing is mentioned regarding the status of the OP1 despite the fact that the same Advocate is representing both the Ops. We have also perused Ex.C1 to Ex.C10, from the perusal of the receipts submitted by the CC, it is crystal clear that the amount received by the Ops by issuance receipt wherein it is mentioned that the amount is received by Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation, Main Bazar, Main Post Office, Ropar.

11.     It is important to mention here that the money was shifted from Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation to Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited by the OP No.1 to OP NO.2, which is proved from the number given in the receipt of the Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation, Ropar 2635, this number is also mentioned in the receipt issued by the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited where it is also the same number is mentioned Ropar 2635. Moreover, there is nothing in the version of OP NO.2 that the money was not transferred from OP No.1 to OP N o.2 directly. There is nothing in the complaint that the money was invested directly with the OP No.2 by the CC. We feel that the version filed by the OP NO.2 is absolutely false, frivolous and concocted and an attempt to deviate the true and correct facts of the complaint. We feel that the O.Ps have not approached this Commission with true and correct facts. It is settled principle of law that whosoever approaches or mislead the court of law deserves no leniency. The Judgments mentioned in the version of the O.Ps. are absolutely not applicable in the present case. It is not the case where the CC had took the membership of any society of the Ops as alleged in the version of the OPs. Rather the money which was given to the OP No.1 which is a sister concern of the OP No.2 for buying the house around the Chandigarh by the CC and the Ops who could not start any construction of any homes in or around City deviated the funds of their own in the account of the OP No.2, which they alleged was the society is absolutely false and frivolous. It is writ-large on the file that the CC never opted directly and invested money in the scheme of OP No.2, rather her money under compelling circumstances was deviated by the OP No.1 to OP No.2. It is proved on file that CC only invested her money in order to purchase two small houses in Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh, where the Ops had alleged to acquire over 200 Acres of Land in Chandigarh. It is important to mention here that the version filed by the OPs is absolutely false, frivolous and concocted and is intentionally Ops have tried to give a turn to the simple consumer dispute of the CC.

12.     We feel that the Ops do not deserves any leniency by this Commission they have done a fraud, cheating and misrepresentationon the poor CC and rather they are again trying to mislead the Commission and even trying to cheat the court of law by filing a reply which is based on surmises and conjectures. The Ops even have not denied the affidavit of the CC in its reply. Ops have also not denied the receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 which is bearing No.2635 and is circle as Red, which also bears the same number on the FDRs issued allegedly by the O.Ps. Even, in the affidavit of Abhishek Sharma, who is allegedly, the Sector Manager, who is working in Sector Manager Office and is filed by the Advocate of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 has nowhere specifically denied the receipts issued by the OP No.1 time to time to the CC i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. It is not proved on file that CC ever took any membership of any society of OP No.2 as mentioned in the version. Rather, the averments of the CC in the complaint appears to be cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring. 

13.     This is not a dispute between a society and its member. Rather, it is an act of misrepresentation on behalf of the O.Ps who have deviated the funds of the CC from OP No.1 to OP No.2 instead of returning the amount of the CC immediately when they were not able to construct the homes as promised by them in or around Chandigarh. During the arguments, the advocate for the O.Ps. was not answering the question asked by this Commission time and again about the veracity of these receipts and even the same number which is mentioned on the FDRs and on the receipt allegedly issued by the OP No.1. at the time of receiving the amount from the CC. Even during the pendency of the application, the advocate for the O.Ps. moved two applications. The applications are also dismissed since it had no substance.

13.     In view of the discussion made above, it is ordered that the OPs. To pay Rs. 7,38,680/- to the CC along with interest @ 18% per annum jointly and severally (Ops No.1 & 2) from the date of filing of this complaint. The OPs are further burdened to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the CC. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

 

January 08, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                               

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

MEMBER