| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.296 of 2.12.2020 Decided on: 16.7.2021 Sunaina Kumari wife of Sh.Mukesh Kumar aged about 33 years, resident of H.No.16-A, St.No.10,Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jhill Road, Patiala-147001. …………...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 India Privar, near Sethi Sales Corporation Opposite Polo Ground, 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.M.L.Sharma, counsel for complainant. Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sunaina Kumari (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 scheme for saving vide which 15% per annum return was assured on deposited amount after 18 months. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.16000/- vide receipt No.34010224542, Rs.17000/-vide receipt No.34010224543 and Rs.17000/- vide receipt No.34010224544 on 3.7.2015 and OPs issued certificates bearing Nos.304 00607977, 304 00607978 and 304 00607979 dated 3.7.2015 vide which Rs.19600/-, Rs.19825/- and Rs.19825/- respectively was payable on maturity date. After maturity date, the complainant visited the office of the OPs and made several requests for the payment of maturity amount but the OPs did not pay any heed and failed to make the payment of maturity amount which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to make the payment of the maturity amount alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as cost of 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 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 OPs to become the member of Society and he being member of Society had deposited the amount in question after fully understanding the by-laws and objects 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.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 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 Rs.16,000, Rs.17,000/- and Rs.17000/- - with them and after maturity Rs.19600/-, 19,825/-, and Rs.19,825/- was to be paid. 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 to Ex.3 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 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 was paid by the OPs. Vide Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 Rs.16000/, Rs.17000/- and Rs.17000/- was deposited on 3.7.2015. However, the OPs have not refunded any amount to the complainant so they are liable to refund the actual amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest from the date of deposit.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 3.7.2015 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 | |
