DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

                                            PATIALA                                                  

                                             Consumer  Complaint No.  209 dt.6/10/2020                                                                                                                                              Decided on:   20/08/2021

Gurnam Singh son of Jarnail Singh, aged about 41 years, resident of Hargobind Colony, P.O. Bhadurgarh, District  Patiala-147001.                                                                                        ...Complainant      

                                         Versus 

1.    Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited,  195, Zone-1, 

In front of D. B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal,(Madhya Pradesh)-462011.

2.   Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Sahara India

      Parivar, Near Sethi  Sales Corporation, Opp. Polo Ground, Patiala.                                                                                ….Opposite parties.

                                Complaint under Section34- 35 of the 

                                Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  

QUORUM

                                Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President                                                                                                                                                            Sh. V. K. Gulati, Member 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. M. L. Sharma  Adv. counsel for complainant.

Sh. Dhiraj Puri Adv. counsel for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER

                              JASJIT  SINGH  BHINDER,  PRESIDENT

1.                  Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited  & Ors. ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) on the ground that complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing under Sahara Scheme the amount of Rs.17000/- each on 23/08/2016 and  26/08/2016 vide receipts Nos.34019430694 and 34019430702 respectively. Maturity date of the same was 23/08/2019 and 26/08/2019 and maturity amount of the same was Rs.26,000/- each (Total Rs.52,000/-). After due date of said Accounts, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents with OPs for releasing of the maturity amount. The complainant several times visited the office of the OPs  for making the payment so deposited as per the scheme but OPs did not release the amount deposited by the complainant with matured value. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount but they failed to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the total maturity amount of Rs.52,000/-  of  both the receipts/ certificates along with 9%  interest from the date of their maturity and to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment and mental tension and an amount of  Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses. 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands as the present complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and unsustainable in law. The complainant is a member of the society and if any member of the society has any grievance then he should go to the arbitrator for arbitration.  That in the present complaint the dispute if any between the complainant and the OPs is between members and Society, Therefore, there is special provisions made by the legislatures in Cooperative Societies Act 2008. On merits, it is stated that the complainant being the member of the society  had chosen to invest amount in Sahara Plans  in the shape of FDR/ certificates at Branch office Patiala of Society. Complainant after understanding the by-laws and objects of the society has become a Member. Before opting the scheme the complainant duly understood the terms  and conditions of the scheme  and then the complainant had submitted signed application forms to share for the furtherance of the objects of society. It is further submitted that the maturity value of accounts was as per the terms and conditions of scheme. The complainant demanded additional interest after date of maturity but no additional interest is payable to the complainant after the date of maturity. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law which is completely based on false concocted story and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim or compensation or litigation cost and that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.  It is further pleaded that complainant has made the declaration to abide with the conditions of the scheme, as such the conditions of the scheme are binding upon the complainant and complainant has no right to claim anything against the terms and conditions of the scheme.

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits. 

4.             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. 

5.                  To prove the case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant where in complainant has deposed as per his complaint and Ex.C-1 &Ex.C-2 are the copies of the receipts/certificates. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has invested the amount with the OPs. Further it is contended that the complainant approached the OPs and requested OPs to release the maturity amount of the FDR/ certificates, but the amount was not paid despite approaching the OPs. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of authority letter and Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions.

6.             It is proved on record that the complainant deposited the amount with the opposite parties. Even after the maturity of the certificate, OPs have not paid the maturity amount. In this way OPs have defrauded the innocent complainant despite the fact that amount was received but OPs have not made the payment.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.17,000/- for receipts Nos.34019430694 along with interest @ 6 % per annum from 23/08/2016 ( the date of deposit) and OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.17,000/- for receipt No. 34019430702 along with interest @ 6 % per annum from 26/08/2016 ( the date of deposit). OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 

ANNOUNCED*      

Dated: 20/08/2021          

                                   (V. K. Gulati)                      (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                                         Member                                      President