Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/76/2023

HARINDER RAO S/O MAHATAM RAO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARAYAN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal Adv.

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[ADDL. BENCH]

 

 

Appeal No.	:	76 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	25.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	02.01.2024

 

 

Harinder Rao son of Mahatam Rao, resident of House No. 293, Saini Vihar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Phase-I, Baltana, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) - 140604.

….Appellant

Versus

[1]      Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., (Registered under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, Regd. No. MSCS/CR/935/ 2014) Regd. Office at 195, Zone-I, in front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh - 462011.

 

[2]      The Branch Manager, Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., Sahara Parivar, SCO No. 541, 2^nd Floor, Gali No.5, Keshoram Complex, Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

 

          Second Address: Sahara India, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

          Third Address: Sahara India Parivar, SCO 84/A, Shahi Mazra, Balongi Road, Mohali, Punjab.

 

[5]      S.P. Kushwaha, Franchise Head, Code: 239710287, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

….Respondents

 

BEFORE:

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:    Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.  

Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY,  PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1]                This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.02.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/211/2022, in the following terms: -

“4.     In the light of aforesaid discussion, the complainant has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint partly succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

 

(i)       to pay the maturity amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 31.12.2017 till realization of the same.

 

(ii)      to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

 

(iii)     to pay ₹5,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5.       This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

 

2]             For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3]                Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant/Appellant that OP-1 company had floated various schemes and invited public at large to invest amount in the schemes whereby lucrative incentives and interest was offered and on the assurance of the Opposite Parties, Complainant had invested hard earned money in various  scheme floated by Opposite Parties by depositing an amount of ₹50,000/- on 31.12.2017 vide deposit receipt Annexure C-1, as per complainant the same was to be matured on 30.12.2020 with maturity value of ₹1,53,306/-. After the date of maturity, when the complainant approached the office of Opposite Parties for refund of the matured amount, he was informed that the said amount shall be transferred in his savings account directly. Since the said amount has not been transferred by the Opposite Parties in favour of complainant, he got served a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 12.02.2022, which failed to fructify. Opposite Parties were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

4]                Despite afforded ample opportunities to file written statement the Opposite Parties failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 45 days, thus, defence of Opposite Parties was ordered to be struck off by the Ld. Lower Commission vide order dated 04.10.2022.

 

5]                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

 

6]                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant.

 

7]                We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8]                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9]                Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant argued that the Complainant along with the consumer complaint had filed Annexure C-1 i.e. deposit receipt issued by the Respondents and duly signed by Respondent No.3 (Sh. S.P. Kushwaha). The said receipt duly reflected maturity amount to be ₹1,53,306/- and date of maturity to be 30.12.2020.  Hence, the Appellant/Complainant deserved to be awarded his entire hard earned amount of ₹1,53,306/- along with interest instead of ₹50,000/- awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission. To this effect, reliance on calculations made on Annexure A-6 has been placed. Apart from this, it has been argued that the Appellant/Complainant is entitled for ₹86,083/- on the basis of accumulated joining points. In this regard, while placing reliance on Annexure A-2 Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the order of the Ld. Lower Commission deserves to be modified.

 

10]              For arriving at a logical end and for tying the loose ends, on the asking of this Commission, during the proceedings of instant appeal, Sh. S.P. Kushwaha, Franchisee Head (Respondent No.3) has elucidated how the deposited amount of ₹50,000/- became payable ₹1,53,306/-. Upon which, Learned Counsel for the Respondents agreed and fairly conceded the entitlement of the Appellant/ Complainant to the amount of ₹1,53,306/-.       In this view of the matter, there remains no dispute about the fact that the Appellant/Complainant is in fact entitled to the amount of ₹1,534,306/-instead of only ₹50,000/- as awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

11]              However, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in I.A. No. 56308 of 2023 in Writ petition(C) 191/2022 titled as Pinak Pani Mohant  Vs.  Union of  India & Ors., decided on 29.3.2023, the Appellant/ Complainant is entitled for the refund of the subject amount now to be adjudicated   by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter referred to as Special Authority).   Thus, in this backdrop, the vital question, which falls for consideration, is as to what course is available to the Appellant/Complainant in the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 29.03.2023 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter-alia, directed, inter-alia, as under:-

“(i) Out of the total amount of Rs.24,979.67 Crores lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”, Rs. 5000 Crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who, in turn, shall disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which shall be paid to the genuine depositors in the most transparent manner and on proper identification and on submitting proof of their deposits and proof of their claims and to be deposited in their respective bank accounts directly.

 

(ii) The disbursement shall be supervised and monitored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court with the able assistance of Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist Justice R. Subhash Reddy as well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. The manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in consultation with Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate.

 

(iii) xxxxx

(iv) We direct that the amount be paid to the respective genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000 Crores at the earliest, but not later than nine months from today. The balance amount thereafter be again transferred to the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account.”

 

 

12]              It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the larger public interest/interest of the genuine depositors and to enable the depositors to get their refund at the earliest, vide the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2023, directed the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies to work out the manner and modalities for making disbursement of the deposited amount to the consumers under the guidelines of R. Subhash Reddy Former Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate and such disbursement shall also be supervised and monitored  by the Amicus Curiae. The Hon’ble Apex Court also directed that the amount be paid to the respective genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies out of the amount of ₹5,000 Crores at the earliest, but not later than nine months from the date of order i.e. 29.03.2023 and the balance amount thereafter has been ordered to be again transferred to the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account.

 

13]              In view of peculiar facts and circumstances & developments in the present case and strictly taking note of order dated 29.03.2023 of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the concerted view that it would be in the fitness of things, to dispose of the instant appeal with the directions to the Complainant/Appellant to file his claim before the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies for determination & settlement thereof. Ordered accordingly. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is set-aside

 

14]              No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

15]              Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.

 

16]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

 

Pronounced

02.01.2024.

                                                                                                  Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”