DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 296
Instituted on: 02.07.2019
Decided on: 14.12.2020
Majer Singh @ Major Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Village Khanal Kalan, Tehsil Dirba, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. Registered Office: 195, Zone-1, in Front of D.B. Mall, MP Nagar, Bhopal (Madhya Pardesh) through its Managing Director 462011.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited (Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited) Branch Office: Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Sangrur through its Branch Manager 148026.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: :Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.
For the OPs : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
1. The complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties by investing an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the OPs in the shape of FDR under Super BB Plan and the Ops issued FDR number 085-001774253 dated 31.5.2016 and the date of maturity of the FDR was 31.5.2019 and amount payable to the complainant was to the tune of Rs.76,800/-. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant surrendered his FDR document to the OPs and requested the Ops to refund the due amount of Rs.76,800/-, but all in vain. Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to release the maturity amount of Rs.76,800/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till its realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, and harassment and an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite parties appeared through Advocate Shri Udit Goyal and filed written version. In written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties and that if the complainant is a member of the society and has any grievance or dispute with the society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration agreement under clause 18.
3. On merits, it is submitted that only a member of society can avail the benefits of society and the complainant after understanding the bye-laws and objects of the society had become member and being a member of society with membership number 956154000082 he had invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- for 36 months vide FDR/certificate number 085001774253, but it is denied that the complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.76,800/- on maturity.
4. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
5. 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.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that on assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties by investing an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the OP number 1 and 2 and the Ops issued FDR number 085-001774253 dated 31.5.2016 and the said amount was invested for three years and on maturity the amount payable to the complainant was Rs.76,800/-. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant surrendered his FDR certificate and requested the Ops to refund the due amount of Rs.76,800/-, but all in vain. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the complainant after understanding the bye-laws and objects of the society had become member and being a member of society with membership number 956154000082 he had invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- for 36 months on 31.5.2016 and the date of maturity was 31.5.2019, but it is denied that the complainant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.76,800/-. It is stated that the opposite parties agreed to make payment but due to enhance demand amount with additional interest by the complainant the said payment could not be paid by the opposite parties. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.
7. It is proved on record that the complainant deposited with the opposite parties a total amount of Rs.50,000/- on 31.5.2016 for a period of 36 months meaning thereby the said amount was returnable on maturity i.e. on 31.5.2019, but the opposite parties failed to pay the due maturity amount of Rs.76,800/- along with interest to the complainant. Though the stand of the opposite parties is that the amount could not be paid due to enhanced demand amount with additional interest by the complainant but we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay the due/invested amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest, as the complainant has miserably failed to produce any cogent and reliable document showing that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.76,800/-. In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
8. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Opposite parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 31.05.2016 till realization in full. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
December 14, 2020.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
