| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.211 of 6.10.2020 Decided on: 20.8.2021 Anita Rani wife of Sh.Jiwan Das about 37 years, resident of House No.538,Dhanka Mohalla, Patiala-147001. …………...Complainant Versus - Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, 195, Zone-1, In Front of D.B.Mall, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)-462011.
- Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Sahara India Privar, near Sethi Sales Corporation Opposite Polo Ground, Patiala 147001.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.M.L.Sharma, counsel for complainant. Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Anita Rani (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that the OPs launched a Super-BB saving scheme vide which on deposit of Rs.5000/- an amount of Rs.7680/- was payable alongwith contribution after the period of 36 months.
- It is averred that under the scheme the complainant deposited Rs.12325/-vide receipt dated 23.2.2016 and the OPs issued certificate bearing No.085000671853 and the maturity amount of Rs.18932/- was to be paid on 23.2.2019 after the expiry of 36 months. It is further averred that after the maturity date the complainant visited the office of OPs so many times but all in vain. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to make the payment of Rs.18932/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, ; to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.3300/-.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands ; that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction as Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited is duly registered society and the complainant is a member of Society, thus the relation between the parties is of Member and Society and as such complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that complainant himself contacted the office of the OPs to become member of society and after fully understanding the by-laws and objects of the society became the Member of society and deposited the amount in question in the scheme namely Sahara Super BB . It is pleaded that the complainant has concocted a false story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs launched a saving scheme and complainant deposited total amount of Rs.12325/- with them and on maturity Rs.18932/- was to be paid by the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that after due date nothing has been paid despite making several requests to the OPs .So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not a consumer as such the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which the amount was deposited.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.OPA of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, who has deposed as per the written reply,Ex.OP1 is the authority letter , Ex.OP2 is Super BB .
- From the documents, it is clear that the OPs have played a fraud with the complainant as the complainant has deposited the amount with them but after maturity till date no amount was paid by the OPs. Vide certificate,Ex.C1 Rs.12325/- was deposited by the complainant on 23.2.2016. There is no evidence on the file that amount of Rs.18932/- was to be paid after maturity. However, as the OPs have played fraud with the OPs, so they are liable to refund the actual amount deposited by the complainant.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.12,325/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and further Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
- Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:20.8.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
