DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                    Complaint No. 191

                                                                    Instituted on:   03.02.2021

                                                                   Decided on:     13.12.2021

Sarabjit Kaur aged 34 years w/o Avtar Singh resident of village Ubheya, P.O. Ladbanjara Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.    

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                Versus

1.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Samana, District Patiala ( now shifted to opposite Polo Ground, Patiala) through its Branch Manager.

2.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara Indi Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226 024 through its M.D./G.M.

                     ….Opposite parties. 

           For the complainant  : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.              

For the OPs              : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                                   Shri Udit Goyal, Advocates.

Quorum                                          

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER BY:     

S.P. Sood, President.

1.             Complainant Sarabjit Kaur  has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that she availed services of OPs by investing a total sum of Rs.19850/- in the shape of  FDR/certificate  under Plan “ Q Shop Plan-H”  with maturity amount of Rs.46647/- after 30.06.2018. Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, she approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then she was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.46647/- along with interest and also for Rs.40,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience meted out to her and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared through Advocate Shri Udit Goyal and filed written response raising preliminary objection regarding status  of the complainant being a consumer and also explained as to how their’s is a society and it was only on the specific request of the complainant that she was inducted as a member thereof, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant to bring this dispute before the Consumer Forum/Commission instead of approaching the Arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause.

3.             Besides the above said legal objection, OPs have also averred that it is only member of the society who can avail its benefit and, therefore, after having well understood various rules, regulations, byelaws and objectives of the society the complainant became a member and thereafter  invested a sum of Rs.19850/- vide policy/FDR  for 6 years.  After expiry of the said period the complainant never approached concerned officials of the OPs, as such it was not possible for the latter to release the maturity amount.  That being so, complainant could not allege herself to be a consumer of the OPs as there is no subsistence of relationship of consumer and that of the service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  So, the complainant cannot legally seek any such relief under the Consumer Protection Act, so his complaint deserves dismissal.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that his client availed services of the OPs by investing a sum of Rs.19850/- vide  FDR/ certificate  bearing number 71020042463. Further it was also argued that after the lapse of the expiry date, the complainant approached the Ops with a request to release the maturity amount but somehow or the other latter did not accede thereto thereby compelling to approach this Forum/Commission.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant is not a consumer, therefore, her grievance cannot be heard sympathetically in this Forum/Commission. Fact of the matter is that the OPs happens to be a society and the complainant became its member and thereafter invested some amount in one of its schemes as such now if there is any sort of dispute between the complainant and the OPs then only option open to the complainant was to approach the arbitrator and seek his indulgence instead of rushing to this Commission, so the present complaint should be thrown out.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.19850/- with the OPs vide FDR/certificate  correct photocopy of which has been produced on record as Ex.C-2 and the total maturity value of the invested sum happens to be Rs.46647/- after 30.06.2018.  However, there is variance between the parties so far as the status of the complainant is concerned as complainant alleges himself to be a consumer vis-à-vis OPs which can well termed to be service provider whereas latter has alleged themselves to be a society and the complainant being a member thereof should have approached the Arbitrator in case of any dispute  to resolve this controversy. If we look into the file, Ops have not placed any document on record which could indicate that the complainant at any point of time approached the Ops with a specific request to acquire its membership and then had invested with it.  In the same context, going a step ahead there is absolutely no material which could show that any such resolution was adopted by various officials of the OPs or if complainant was ever made to write his signatures on any such application form for becoming member thereof.  Ex.OP-2 is simply a printed form with all its columns lying blank could hardly be pressed into service to fortify the contention of the OPs. Even a sole and definite stand adopted by OPs in this regard vide a separate application also stood repelled by this Forum/Commission. On the contrary, the correct photocopy of the receipts relied upon by the complainant palpably go to show that in fact the disputed amount of Rs.19850/- was invested by the complainant with concerned officials of the OPs having assured her to repay the maturity value of Rs.46647/- after 30.06.2018 could not be shattered.  Now the Ops have not released the maturity value which tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part.

9.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.46647/-   along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of maturity till realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.           A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Announced.

                                December 13, 2021.

      (Vinod Kumar Gulati)           (S.P.Sood)                                            Member                             President