DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.333 of 28.8.2019

                                      Decided on:         3.8.2021

Baljit Singh son of Banta Singh, resident of village Chural Khurad, District Sangrur.                                                           …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, registered office 195, Zone-1, In Front of D.B.Mall, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) through its Managing Director,462011.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited (Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited) Branch Office; Opposite Polo Ground, Lower Mall, Patiala, Tehsil Patiala, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.                                                      …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under  Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                       Sh. Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.G.S.Shergil, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs.                                    

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Baljit Singh  (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,(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that in the month of February,2016 the OPs made the lucrative scheme for the investment in their company with higher rate of interest. Allured by the scheme, the complainant invested total sum of Rs.9113/-vide policy/FDR  under Super BB Plan with OP No.2 who issued FDR No.085-000673027  in favour  of the complainant , to be matured on  23.2.2019 with the maturity value of Rs.13997.57 It is averred that after due date the complainant deposited relevant documents with OP No.2 for releasing the maturity amount but despite repeated requests made by the complainant, the maturity amount did not release by the OPs which caused mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to release the maturity amount alongwith 18% per annum interest and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs; that the OPs 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 OPs is of Member and Soceity; that the complaint is not maintainable and  is liable to be dismissed.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant being member had contributed Rs.9113/- vide FDR No.085-000673027Further the OPs have reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections which need not to be repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Shukla,  alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that in February,2016, the OPs made lucrative scheme for investments and complainant invested  Rs.9113/- with them and after maturity Rs.13997.57/- was to be paid on 23.2.2019. The ld. counsel further argued that after due date nothing has been paid despite the fact that entire documents were deposited by the complainant. So the complaint be allowed.
9. 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.
10. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the membership certificate vide which the amount was deposited.
11. 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 form.
12. 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 Ex.C1 Rs.9113/- were deposited on 23.2.2016.There is no evidence on the file that amount of Rs.13,997.57  was to be paid after maturity. However, as the OPs have played fraud with the complainant, so they are liable to refund the actual amount deposited by the complainant.
13. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.9113/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 23.2.2016 till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and further Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
14. 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:3.8.2021

                                                Y.S.Matta                Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                   Member                           President