| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.50 of 17-2-2022 Decided on :26-5-2023 Sunita Rani, Aged about 49 years, W/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar Verma, R/o H.No.235, St.No.2, Ward No.6, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Sahara Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., (Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.) Opp. Hotel Silver Star, Amsun Pride, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda- 151001 through its Branch Manager/ Auth. Signatory. Sahara Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., (Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.) Regd office at 195, Zone-1, In front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (MP) through its Managing Director/Chairman/ Authorized Signatory. Sahara Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., (Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.) Command Office: Sahara India Bhawan,1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its Chairman-cum Managing Director.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Ram Manohar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. R.K Duggal, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Sunita Rani (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Sahara Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Sahara India Parivar is a registered Society/ company and the registered office of the opposite party No.1 is situated at Lukhnow (UP) and Branches all over India including at Bathinda and Chandigarh. The opposite parties are engaged in the financial activities of accepting deposits from its Members and general public. The opposite parties advertised for the general public to get public deposits in different forms including FDR, Saving Accounts, R.D. Accounts etc. and assured maximum interest on deposits on maturity and on trusting the words of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6400/- with the opposite parties at Bathinda in the shape of FDR No. 467000357212, Receipt No.34019431797 and Membership No.927008000050 on 27.1.2018 for a period of three years, having maturity value o f Rs.12,605/-. It is alleged that FDR bacame matured on 27.1.2021 and after maturity, the complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 &2 and requested to disburse the maturity amount of afoersaid FDR but the opposite parties kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and failed to disburse any amount to the complainant till date. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to release the maturity value of the FDR alongwith upto date interest thereon but to no effect and a week ago, the opposite parties have refused to pay any amount to the complainant. Due to the non payment of above said amount of FDR of the complainant, the opposite parties have caused mental tension, agony, pains and suffering to the complainant. The opposite parties have failed to make the payment to the complainant as such the opposite parties are deficient in providing the services and also adopted unfair trade practices. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to release/ make payment of aforesaid FDR with its maturity value of Rs.12,605/- along with interest @24% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 27.1.2021 till payment, within one month and directions to pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation on account of mental agony, pains and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite parties are Society duly registered under "Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002" and the complainant is a member of Society. Thus relation between the complainant and opposite parties is of Member and Society. Therefore, complaint is defective for misjoinder of unnecessary party. If the complainant who is a member of the Society has any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per clause 11 of the terms & condition of the contribution of the scheme Sahara A Select Scheme. On merits, opposite parties have pleaded that they naver made resquest to reinvest the amount. The complainant himself approached the opposite parties for investment. The opposite parties are not collecting the funds from General Public for the purpose of investment. Rather the members of the society made contribution in the society. The complainant being member of Society with membership/certificate had choosen to make investment in furtherance of the objects of Society. The payment, if any, was strictly payable as per terms & conditions of the contribution. Under Sahara credit society scheme, there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. The complainant has made false and baseless statement. Being a member of Society, complainant had contributed the amount for the furtherance of the objects of Society. It is submitted that under Contribution scheme there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. Further, scheme does not provide interest over the contributed amount. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 14.2.2022 (Ex.C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Krishan Chander dated 2.5.2023 (Ex. OP-1/1) and closer the evidence. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as pleaded in respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt of amount is admitted. The version of the opposite parties is only afterthought to delay refund of amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the payment was never denied to the complainant. He is not entitled to any interest after maturity period. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties and as such, complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the second objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties is that as per Clause '11' of terms & conditions of contribution of the scheme, all disputes between society and member of the society are required to be referreed to the Arbitrator. This argument of the counsel for the opposite parties has no force as Arbitration and Consideration Act does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. Even opposite parties have not produced any agreement or document signed by complainant and representative of the opposite parties to this effect that parties shall be governed by Arbitration and Consideration Act. As such, complainant has rightfully approached this Commission for redressal of her grievances. Moreover, in the written statement and evidence on record, there is not even a single word as to why the opposite parties are not ready to refund the amounts received from the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that he invested amount, which was to mature on due date i.e. 27.1.2021. The complainant has asserted that opposite parties have failed to refund amount on maturity. Hence failure on the part of the opposite parties for not refunding the amount deposited by the complainant without any reasonable cause amounts to deficiency in service on their part. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.12,605/-, maturity value of FDR to the complainant. As opposite parties have delayed the payment, the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on amount of Rs.12,605/- from date of filing of complainant till realization. Opposite parties are at liberty to get filled up any form from the complainant, if so required for release of payment to her. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 26-5-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
