| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 266 of 9.11.2020 Decided on:16.7.2021 Kamaldeep son of Darshan Lal, resident of House No.7274, Guru Nanak Pura Mohalla, Bathinda.. …………...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 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. . 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 Kamaldeep (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 in the month of December,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.1,20,000/- under Super AB Plan through OP No.2 who issued FDR Nos.105-000292916 to 105-000292919 in favour of the complainant and the date of maturity of the said FDRs was 1.7.2019 with the maturity value of Rs.1,71,888/-. 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.
- 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 Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited is duly registered society and the complainant is a member of Society, thus the relation between the complainant 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 being member of Society had contributed Rs.1,20,000/- vide policy/FDRs under Super AB Plan at Patiala and the date of maturity of the FDRs in question was 1.7.2019 and the complainant after understanding the by-laws and objects of the society became a member of the society. He also understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. There is thus 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 Ex.C1 affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C2 to C5 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 December,2016, the OPs made lucrative scheme for investments and complainant invested Rs.1,20,000/- with them and after maturity Rs.1,71,888/- was to be paid. 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.C1 and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 are the membership certificates 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 AB 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 was paid by the OPs. Vide Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively were deposited on 1.12.2016.There is no evidence on the file that amount of Rs.1,71,888/- would 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.1,20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 1.12.2016 till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and further Rs.10,000/- 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:16.7.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
