| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.360 of 4.9.2019 Decided on: 2.7.2021 Gurbachan Singh son of Chanda Singh resident of village Chural Kalan Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur. …………...Complainant Versus - 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.
- 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 Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.G.S.Shergil, counsel for complainant. Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Gurbachan 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,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that the OPs are investment companies and sister concern and collecting funds from general public for the purpose of investment under various plans like recurring deposit and FDR. It is averred 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.20635/- vide policy/FDRs under Super BB Plan through OP No.2 who issued FDR No.085-000673090 in favour of the complainant. It is further averred that the amount was to be matured on 15.2.2019 with the maturity value of Rs.31695/-. 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 and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer; that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as the OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is a member of Society. The OPs have not entered into any agreement with the complainant or received any amount from the complainant for providing services.
- On merits, it is submitted that complainant being member of Society had contributed the amount vide FDR No.085-000673019 at Franchise Office Patiala. It is further submitted that under Saharayn Contribution Scheme there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence, the ld. counsel has tendered 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 in February, 2016, the OPs made lucrative scheme for investments and complainant deposited Rs.20635/- with them and after maturity Rs.31695/- was to be paid by the OPs on 15.2.2019. 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.
- 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 membership certificate 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 form.
- 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 has been paid by the OPs. Vide Ex.C1 Rs.20635/- was deposited on 15.2.2016.There is no evidence on the file that amount of Rs.31695/-was be paid after maturity. However, as the OPs have played fraud with the OPs, so they are liable to refund the actual amount invested by the complainant.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.20635/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 15.2.2016 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:2.7.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
