BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 20.01.2022
Date of decision : 17.06.2022
Rakesh Kumar Chopra, aged about 40 years, resident of House No.102, Malohtra Colony, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
Sahara E Shine, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office Sahara India Bhawan 1 Kapoorthala Complex, AliganjLachnow (UP)through its authorized signatory Nitesh Kr. Shrivastava E Code 27132.
Sahara E Shine, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society through its Branch office Sugar Mill Road Morinda Tehsil Morinda District Rupnagar, Branch Manager.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
QUORUM
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. S.P. Koushal, Adv. counsel for complainant
O.Ps. exparte
Order dictated by Sh. Ranjit Singh, President
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.45,81,222/- along with interest @ 24% per annum ; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by the complainant due to the negligent and unprofessional conduct and working of the officials principle owners of the OP: to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the Branch Manager of the OP, which was situated at Bela Chowk, Ropar had visited the house of the complainant and asked to deposit some money with the Ops and assured that the OP will give double interest than the RBI instructions and then the complainant came under the allurement of the Branch Manager of the OP deposited the amount to the tune of Rs.66,790/- on 15.10.2018 vide certificate No.787002766263, Rs.45918/- on 15.10.2018 vide certificate No. 787002766265, Rs. 16000/- on 14.06.2016 vide certificate No. 795000330033, Rs. 17,000/- on 14.6.2016, vide certificate No. 795000330032, Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.09.2016 vide certificate No. 795001831501. It is further alleged that Local Branch Manager of the OP had also assured that the complainant has the liberty to withdraw this amount before the maturity date, but the complainant had not withdrawn the same. After the maturity of the above said certificates, the complainant had visited the local office of the OP situated at Bela Chowk, Ropar but in that period the said office was shifted from Ropar to Morinda and the complainant had approached the OP2 and requested him to give the maturity amount, but the OP2 has disclosed that as the Sahara Company is now in downfall and due to this reason they are unable to make the payment to the complainant. Even after that the complainant has approached the OP2 more than 100 times, to give the maturity amount but the OP2 was lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Now in the last week, the Ops have refused to pay the said amount to the complainant for the reasons best known to them. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony, harassment and also caused inconvenience to the complainant.
On being put to the notice once Advocate, has appeared and filed memo of appearance on behalf of Ops but on the next date, none has appeared on behalf of Ops. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.04.2022.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents copy of FDR Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file especially contents of the complaint, carefully.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that being allured by the Branch Manager of the opposite parties, the complainant invested the money in the OPs company. The opposite parties asked the complainant that on amount of the complainant will given double interest than the RBI instructions. He also assured by the Branch Manager of the OP that the complainant has the liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the complainant before the maturity date. Further the learned counsel for the complainant submits that on repeated requests to pay the amount under the bond stated above as needed of the complainant, retaining the said amount ignoring the request of the complainant within permissive condition and without responding to the demand of the complainant, it appear to mi-appreciation of the amount. The OPs collected the amount deposited by the complainant but failed to discharge his legitimate duty to repay the amount as demanded as per the conditions and this act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such, they are liable to compensate the complainant or to refund the maturity amount deposited with it along with interest. He further argued that the as per terms and conditions of the OPs company, the complainant is entitled for Rs.45,81,222/-. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.
The learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record the judgment/order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, titled as Sahara India Pariwar&Anr. vs Shyamwati, decided on 07.02.2020, wherein Hon’ble National Commission, has upheld the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana.
The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Chandigarh, in case titled as Satvir Singh Vs Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, decided on 25.5.2022, wherein the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Ops to refund the maturity amount along with interest with compensation and litigation expenses.
7. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent's case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply isfiled to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. A party cannot adduce evidence and set case inconsistent to the pleadings. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. When there is no pleading, the party is precluded from adducing evidence. In the present case, opposite parties have not appeared, despite service by way of dasti notice and were proceeded against ex-parte. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains un-rebutted.
8. Before discussing the case on merits, the preliminary issue is to decide whether the complainant is a consumer as per the Act or not? The definition of 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in Section 7 is mentioned below:
'consumer' means any person who,-
buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
[Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning, his livelihood by means of self- employment;]"
9. After referring the above said complaint filed by the complainant, receipts, complainant counsel made prayer that after several requests made by the complainant to the Ops. the O.Ps. not gave the amountas assured by the Branch Manager of the OPs at the time of depositing the amount by the complainant with the OPs and prayed deficiency is made out and the complaint deserves to be allowed.
10. After appreciating the totality of the documents, contents of the compliant and appreciating the arguments, deficiency stands proved by the complainant.TheO.Ps did not make any improvement as assurance given by the Branch Manager of the Ops then complainant filed the complaint in the month of January 2022. Even, in this complaint, the learned for complainant has calculate the amount as entitled by the complainant. O.Ps. have chosen to remain ex-parte. So, complainant is able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. regarding the payment deposited by him with the OPs. So, the complainant is held entitled the amount as prayed for by the complainant. The responsibilities of the O.Ps. is joint because OP No.2 acted though in the capacity of Branch Manager on behalf of O.P. No.1. They are liable to pay jointly and severally.
11. We, have seen in a number of cases these companies extract more and more money from the genuine consumers in various shapes. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a special Act, which is enacted to prevent the mal practice as well as the unfair trade practice prevailing among the business men.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is benevolent legislation enacted to help the poor consumers, which are being regularly harassed by the unscrupulous traders, who even after receiving the money do not provide the proper services to the consumers. We feel that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, will fail if such types of traders are not brought to book and asked to pay compensation.
13. The evidence and version of the complaint is unrebutted, unchallenged and defence plea of the OPs appears to be devoid of any merit. So, we have no alternative to believe the contents of the compliant. It is important to mention here that with fond hope that he would get the higher rate of interest i.e. agreed by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited the amount but when the complainant claimed his amount including interest then OPs failed to refund the amount of the complainant. Non payment of amount clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
14. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed ex-parte with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.45,81,222/- including interest till date to the complainant as prayed for. The OPs are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs be also directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
15. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (RANJIT SINGH)
Dated. 17.06.2022 PRESIDENT
(RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
CC No.11 of 2022
PRESENT: Sh. SP Koushal, Adv. for complainant
Ops exparte
Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the complaint stands allowed exparte. The filed be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
17.06.2022
