Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/360

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayn Universal Mult. Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gurdeep Singh

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 360 dated  18.12.2020.      

                                                Date of decision: 14.12.2022. 

 

1. Balwinder Singh Chandok, aged 54 years S/o. S. Inder Singh, R/o.661, I-Block, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana-141001.
2. Ravinder Kaur aged 52 years wife of Balwinder Singh Chandok, aged 54 years S/o. S. Inder Singh, R/o.661, I-Block, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana-141001                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited,

Franchise office: Bal Tower, 2^nd Floor, Near Dada Motors, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

Branch Office: S.C.O. 23-24, Sahil Plaza, Block-D, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

2. Chief Executive Officer Managing Director, Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, 195, Zone-1, In Front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011.
3. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
4. Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhawan BKC Plot Number C4-A G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra.                                                                                                                                                         …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Gurdeep S. Sherdil, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Exparte.

For OP4                         :         Complaint against OP4 stands already                                                         dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated                                                      26.05.2022.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Mr. Ajit Pal Singh, an agent of opposite party no.1 to 3 approached the complainants and allured them to invest their savings with them representing with promise of handsome profits in the form of interest and certain additional benefits. Acting upon and induced by the repeated assurance of the opposite parties, the complainants invested the hard earned money detailed as under:-

Sr. No.	Amount	Receipt No.	Certificate No.	Dated
1.	Rs.3,10,000/-	34012947528	304006714505	30.06.2015
2.	Rs.87,978/-	34019415327	85001769057	27.05.2016
3.	Rs.3,43,138/-	34019415326	85001769056	27.05.2016

 In addition to this, the complainants also got opened a recurring account with the opposite parties on 06.12.2013 vide application No.311016536771 and deposited Rs.8000/- per month for 22 months i.e. total Rs.1,76,000/-.  On maturity of the all the above said amounts, the complainants have not received any amount from the opposite parties till date. The complainants visited the franchisee office of the opposite parties regularly requesting them to return the amount along with interest but the officials of the opposite parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Even the complainant approached Mr. Ajit Pal Singh agent of the opposite parties but of no use.  Thereafter, the officials of opposite parties informed that due to dispute with SEBI in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India there is an unforeseen delay in payment of investment amounts and as such, no amount can be credited to any of its investors/customers. In this manner, the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice.  The complainants also sent a legal notice dated 18.02.2020 through their counsel but the opposite parties have not responded to the legal notice. The complainants have suffered mental tension, harassment, pain and agony besides financial loss on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint whereby the complainants have claimed refund of total amount of Rs.14,03,187/- along with interest @12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice OP1 to OP3, initially Sh. Sandeep Shukla, Advocate appeared and filed power memo of appearance on behalf of OP1 to OP3 but later on, none turned up for OP1 to OP3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.08.2021.

3.                Upon notice OP1 did not appeared and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.04.2021. Subsequently, Sh. Aman Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP4 on 03.08.2021 and filed application to join the proceedings at this stage. On 19.08.2021, OP4 filed written statement stating therein by taking preliminary objections that SEBI is established under Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 (SEBI Act) to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market and for matters connected therein or incidental thereto and as such cannot be said to be rendering any services for consideration as contemplated under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.4 and is liable to be dismissed as the performance of statutory functions cannot be construed as rendering of any services for consideration in terms of the Act as no fees is charged by SEBI from any investors for functions performed. Opposite party No.4 being a regulatory body cannot be held liable for any wrong doing committed in its name by others. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as no specific relief has been sought against opposite party No.4. While giving para wise reply, the opposite parties reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and submissions and once again denied for having indulged in unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in service and prayer for dismissal of the complaint against it also made.   

4.                On 26.05.2022, the counsel for the complainant suffered statement to give up/relinquish opposite party No.4 and as such, vide order dated 26.05.2022 the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn as against opposite party No.4.

5.                In evidence, the complainant No.1 tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant No.1 also placed on record copy of adhar card of complainant No.2 as Mark-A, copy of his  adhar card as Ex. C1, certificate No.304006714505 as Ex. C2, contribution receipt having folio No.24295700858 as Ex. C3, certificate No.85001769057 as Ex. C4, contribution receipt having folio No.69876601627 as Ex. C5, certificate No.85001769056 as Ex. C6, contribution receipt having folio No.69876601626 as Ex. C7, copy of passbook as Ex. C8 and Ex. C9, legal notice Ex. C10, postal receipts Ex. C11 to Ex. C15, copies of letters written by complainants to Ministry of Agriculture an Farmers Welfare are Ex. C16 and Ex. C17, postal receipts are Ex. C18 and Ex. C19 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also perused and examined the record carefully.

6.                We have considered the facts of the complaint, affidavit and documents submitted by the complainant.   It was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to honour the contractual obligation within the stipulated time. As per certificate No.304006714505 Ex. C2, the complainants deposited Rs.3,10,000/-, as per certificate No.85001769057  Ex. C4 the complainants deposited Rs.87,978/-,  as per certificate No.85001769056  Ex. C6 the complainants deposited Rs.3,43,138/-, as per copies of passbook of recurring deposit Ex. C8 and Ex. C9 the complainants deposited Rs.1,84,000/- which they were supposed to pay to the complainants on the maturity. The said amounts were not released by the opposite parties despite the repeated requests and visits by the complainants. The act and conduct of the opposite parties first in inducing the complainants by lucrative offer to invest their hard earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency of service. Rather it appears that the opposite party No.1 to 3 had dishonest intentions to cheat since the inception of the dealing between the parties. 

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainants along with interest @8% per annum from 30.05.2015 till date of actual payment, amount of Rs.87,978/- as well as amount of Rs.3,43,138/- to the complainants along with interest @8% per annum from 27.05.2016 till date of actual payment and amount of Rs.1,84,000/- to the complainants along with interest @8% per annum from 06.12.2013 till date of actual payment. The opposite party No.1 to 3 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Balwinder Singh   Vs Saharayn Universal                                CC/20/360

Present:       Sh. Gurdeep S. Sherdil, Advocate for complainants.

                   OP2 to OP3 exparte.

                   Complaint against OP4 stands already dismissed as withdrawn vide             order dated 26.05.2022.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainants along with interest @8% per annum from 30.05.2015 till date of actual payment, amount of Rs.87,978/- as well as amount of Rs.3,43,138/- to the complainants along with interest @8% per annum from 27.05.2016 till date of actual payment and amount of Rs.1,84,000/- to the complainants along with interest @8% per annum from 06.12.2013 till date of actual payment. The opposite party No.1 to 3 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.