DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PATIALA
Consumer Complaint No. 304 dt.08/12/2020 Decided on: 02/07/2021
Renu Agrahari wife of Vinod Agarhari son of Late Prahlad Agrahari, Resident of House No.358/1, Purani Ghas Mandi, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala. ...Complainant
Versus
- Sahara Q Shop North, Office: Sahara India complex, C-2, C-3, C-4,
Sector 11, Noida-201301, through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara India, Regional Office: SCO 1110/11, Sector 22, Chandigarh
through its Regional Manager.
3. Sahara India, Branch Office: Sethi Complex, Mall Road, Near Modi
College Chowk, Opp. Polo Ground, Lower Mall Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager/ Sector Manager. ….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM
Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Mohit Kansal Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Dhiraj Puri Adv. counsel for the Opposite Parties.
ORDER
JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely Sahara Q Shop North & Ors. ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) on the ground that complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.3,000/- under Sahara Scheme advance plan vide receipt No.583000038650 on 12/06/2013. The maturity of the same was six years i.e. 2019 and maturity value of the same is Rs.6780/-. Complainant has also invested an amount of Rs.5500/- under Sahara Scheme vide Receipt No.583000038773 on 06/01/2014. The date of maturity of the same was after six years and maturity value of the same is Rs.12,430/-. Complainant has also invested an amount of Rs.1000/- under Sahara Scheme vide Receipt No.710020034008 on 25/08/2012. The maturity value of the same is Rs.2350/-. After due date of the above said FDR/ Certificates the complainant submitted all the relevant documents with OPs for releasing the amount. The complainant ran from pillar to post for the redressal of his grievances but OPs did not release the amount deposited by the complainant with matured value. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount but they failed to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the maturity amount along with 12% interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment and mental tension and an amount of Rs.21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands as the present complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and unsustainable in law. The complainant is a member of the society and if any member of the society has any grievance then he should go to the arbitrator for arbitration. That in the present complaint the dispute if any between the complainant and the OPs is between members and Society, Therefore, there is special provisions made by the legislatures in Cooperative Societies Act 2008. On merits, it is stated that the complainant being the member of the society had chosen to invest amount in Sahara Scheme in the shape of FDR/ certificate at Branch office Patiala of Society. Complainant after understanding the by-laws and objects of the society has become a Member. Before opting the scheme the complainant duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme and then the complainant had submitted signed application forms to share for the furtherance of the objects of society. It is further submitted that the maturity value of accounts was as per the terms and conditions of scheme. The complainant demanded additional interest after date of maturity but no additional interest is payable to the complainant after the date of maturity. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law which is completely based on false concocted story and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim or compensation or litigation cost and that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further pleaded that complainant has made the declaration to abide with the conditions of the scheme, as such the conditions of the scheme are binding upon the complainant and complainant has no right to claim anything against the terms and conditions of the scheme.
3. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. To prove the case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant where in complainant has deposed as per his complaint and Ex.C-1 is the copy of receipt, Ex.C-2 is the copy of aadhaar Card of the complainant and Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 copies of certificates. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant invested the amount of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5500/-, Rs.1000/- vide respective receipts. The maturity value of the same is Rs.6780/-, Rs.12,430/-, & Rs.2350/-. Further it is contended that the complainant approached the OPs and requested OPs to release the maturity amount of the FDR/ certificate, but the amount was not paid despite approaching the OPs. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of authority letter and Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions.
6. It is proved on record that the complainant deposited with the opposite parties a sum of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,500/-, Rs.1000/- vide various receipts. Even after the maturity of the same, OPs have not paid the maturity amount. In this way OPs have defrauded the innocent complainant despite the fact that amount was received but OPs have not made the payment. Even the date of maturity and maturity amount is also not mentioned on the receipts.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 12/06/2013, Rs.5500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 06/01/2014, Rs.1000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 25/08/2012 till realization. It is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED*
Dated: 02/07/2021
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
