Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/16/2020

Santosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayn Universal multipurpose Society - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Kumar

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    16 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         09.01.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 10.06.2022.

 

Santosh w/o Shri Subhash Chand, r/o village Sanwat, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal, through her power of attorney Shri Hari Parkash s/o Shri Subhash Chand, r/o village Sanwat, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., Regd. Office: 195, Zone-1, in front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011, through its Manager.
2. Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., branch office Gita Girl School, Amin Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra through its Manager.

 

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Shishan Dutt Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that initially, the complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- with OPs in the month of February 2013 and as per scheme, the OPs assured that after tenure of six years, the invested money will be Rs.7,34,493/-. It is further alleged that after the tenure of three years, the official of OPs approached to her and forced to change the policy by saying that interest rate of market has been changed and in good faith, she agreed to break the Fixed Deposit and OPs re-fixed the whole maturity amount of Rs.4,90,463/- for the period of three years on 30.01.2016 under scheme Code No.903027 under name Super BB-36 vide Membership No.924796000221, Certificate No.85000609150, Account No.24796600280 and OPs assured that this time he will get good maturity rate. On 29.01.2019, the said policy/Fixed Deposit amount matured and the complainant approached the OPs and requested to encash the said policy, but inspite of encashed/released the maturity amount, the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to release the same. Having with no alternative, complainant got issued legal notice upon the OPs through advocate on 28.08.2019, which was duly received by them, but till date, neither the OPs replied the same nor released the maturity amount to her, due to which, she suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements denying the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. It is submitted that the OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and complainant is a member of said Society, therefore, relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and if any dispute between the Society and Member arose, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. If complainant who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator. There was no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                The complainant, in support of her case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed her evidence.

5.                 On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that initially, the complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- with OPs in the month of February 2013 and as per scheme, the OPs assured that after tenure of six years, the invested money will be Rs.7,34,493/-. It is further alleged that after the tenure of three years, the official of OPs approached to her and forced to change the policy by saying that interest rate of market has been changed and in good faith, she agreed to break the Fixed Deposit and OPs re-fixed the whole maturity amount of Rs.4,90,463/- for the period of three years on 30.01.2016 under scheme Code No.903027 under name Super BB-36 and OPs assured that this time he will get good maturity rate. On 29.01.2019, the said policy/Fixed Deposit amount matured and the complainant approached the OPs and requested to encash the said policy, but the OPs refused to release the same. Having with no alternative, complainant got issued legal notice upon the OPs through advocate on 28.08.2019, which was duly received by them, but till date, neither the OPs replied the same nor released the maturity amount to her, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

8.                Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and complainant is a member of said Society, therefore, relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and if any dispute between the Society and Member arose, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. If complainant, who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer her dispute before Arbitrator, as per Clause 11 of the terms & conditions of scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. He further argued that the complainant had chosen scheme Super BB to make investment in furtherance of the objects of Society on 30.01.2016 and contributed Rs.490,463/- at sector office Kurukshetra subject to fulfillment of required terms and conditions of scheme. There was no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                At the outset, the first and foremost question arises before this Commission for consideration is “Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complainant or not?”

10.              In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has submitted the since branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint

11.              It is admitted fact that the complainant is the resident of village Sanwat, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal. From the perusal of FDR Ex.C-1 and receipt Ex.R-2, it is evident that these were issued by Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh i.e. the OP No.1. So, from the perusal of above documents, it is evident that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at Kurukshetra. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on the case file in this regard. Even if, it is presumed that the branch office of OPs is situated at Kurukshetra, but mere branch office does not create any territorial jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, until and unless the cause of action arises at Kurukshetra. In this regard, we can rely upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission”.

12.              However, it is pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of title of complaint as well as documents attached with it, it can be seen even with the naked eye that the complainant has no territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint before this Commission, but it is not understandable, why the counsel for the OPs, has not taken this plea of territorial jurisdiction, in his written statement as well as at the time of arguments. Moreover, the written statement, filed by the OPs on 12.03.2021, bears no Stamp or Seal of the OPs Company. There is only signature, stamp of Rajesh Kumar, Emp. Code 14179, Sector Worker, on the said written statement. There is not mentioned the name of Company or Office. Similar is the position with the Vakalatnama, filed on behalf of OPs. It seems that, instead of contesting the case, the OPs looks favouring the complainant intentionally to gain undue advantage and by taking undue advantage of benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further, it appears that both the parties are ‘hand in glove with each other’, by not producing the real and accurate facts, before this Commission, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 

13.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case and the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, we are of the considered opinion that since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. Thus, we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:10.06.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.