Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that Opposite Party has formed Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Gali No.2, Moga. Further alleges that Opposite Parties used to collect the money from the people and accordingly, on the assurance of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had deposited Rs.36,000/- i.e. Rs.1000/- per month for a period of 36 months w.e.f. 31.12.2014 to 10.11.2017 and as per the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, after the maturity, the Opposite Parties had to repay Rs.45,000/-. On maturity, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to make the maturity amount, but they refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered huge mental tension and agony and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be granted.

Hence, the present complaint.

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint   by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the Opposite Party and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party and the complainant is not  entitled to get any relief from this District Consumer Commission. Actual facts are that  the answering Opposite Party having no concern with the M/s.Sarvotam Enterprises as whole money has been received by Balkar Singh and in this regard, he has also executed a compromise in favour of the complainant in which he clearly mentioned that he will be fully responsible to repay the money to all the persons whom paid the entire amount to him in favour of Opposite Party. In this way, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to repay any amount to any person and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the answering Opposite Party. On merits, Opposite Party took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections  and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite Party and the complaint against Opposite Party  may be dismissed.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the copies of receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C32, copy of agreement Ex.C33, affidavit Ex.C34 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Jasvir Singh Ex.OP1(ii)/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party  and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       The complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that Opposite Party has formed Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Gali No.2, Moga. Further alleges that Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) used to collect the money from the people and accordingly, on the assurance of the Opposite Party, the complainant had deposited Rs.36,000/- i.e. Rs.1000/- per month for a period of 36 months w.e.f. 31.12.2014 to 10.11.2017 and as per the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, after the maturity, the Opposite Party had to repay Rs.45,000/-. On maturity, the complainant approached the Opposite Party to make the maturity amount, but they refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered huge mental tension and agony and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the answering Opposite Party having no concern with M/s.Sarvotam Enterprises as whole money has been received by Balkar Singh and in this regard, he has also executed a compromise in favour of the complainant in which he clearly mentioned that he will be fully responsible to repay the money to all the persons whom paid the entire amount to him in favour of Opposite Party. In this way, the answering Opposite Party is not liable to repay any amount to any person and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the answering Opposite Party.

8.       Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has deposited the amount with Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908), copies of the receipts are placed on record as Ex.C1 to Ex.C32. The copy of agreement Ex.C33 reveals that at the time of depositing the money with Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908), they assured that as and when the complainant requires some household item or any other item to be given in the marriage of their son/ daughter, the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) will immediately give the said item on reasonable price, otherwise on the maturity, the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) will make the amount alongwith interest. On the maturity, the complainant made request to the Opposite Party-Saravotam Enterprises, but the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The amount deposited by the complainant with Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) is not disputed between the parties. Moreover, the complainant has placed on record the copy of agreement Ex.C31 vide which Balkar Singh has duly admitted the liability of the depositors in the presence of respectable persons of the village with regard to payment of the deposited amount.    So, we are of the view that the complainant has successful in proving vide receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 that he has deposited the total amount with the Opposite Party-Saravotam Enterprises in different instalments in the shape of deposit receipts  and the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) is  bound to repay the said amount on its maturity. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908)  has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No. 127 of 2021 & others in case titled Savitri Devi Vs M/s Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, decided on 21.6.2021 has held that Consumer Fora (now Consumer Commission) has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, where the consumer comes to the Consumer Fora/Commission claiming the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.       Now come to the quantum of relief.  In the present complaint, the complainant has alleged that he has deposited Rs.36,000/- with the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises, but perusal of the record shows that the complainant has produced on record the receipts of (i) Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) and (ii) Sarvotam Helpline Society (Regd) and both are the separate legal identity. Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises is (Registered No. 4908) whereas Sarvotam Helpline is a Society, both may be sister concerns. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) and as such, he can claim his right against the Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908)  only. However, the complainant has a right to lodge his claim by filing separate complaint against Sarvotam Helpline Society (Regd), in accordance with law.  As per the record, the complainant has produced the receipts of Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) amounting to Rs.32,000/- and at the most, he can claim his right against the receipts amounting to Rs.32,000/-        

10.               In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Gali No.2, Moga through its Authorized Representative  is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two  thousands only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of its respective deposits  till its final payment. Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908) is also directed to  pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party-Sarvotam Enterprises (Registered No. 4908),  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant  shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

11.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 25.01.2022.