Haryana

StateCommission

A/589/2019

SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAILJA GOYAL - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. SINGAL

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.589 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 24.06.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 25.07.2019

 

 

1.      Sahara India Pariwar, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

 

2.      Sahara India Pariwar, Branch Located at adjoining Jyani Hospital, Near State Bank of India, Main Branch, 2^nd Floor, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

 

 

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

VERSUS

 

Shailja Goyal, aged about 36 years wife of Shri Sumit Goyal son of Shri Harbans Lal, resident of House No.13/424, Lane-5, Gobind Nagar, Hisar Road, Sirsa-125055 (Haryana).

 

…Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri D.K. Singal, counsel for the appellants.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The opposite parties have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated March 28^th, 2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa, whereby complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties directed to refund the maturity amount of the FDRs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further directed to pay interest at the contractual rate which was agreed between the parties from the date of maturity of the FDRs till the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. They were also directed to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      According to the complainant, she had deposited her saving amount in the account opened by her in the shape of many FDRs of different amounts on different dates and opposite party No.1 issued the different receipts and the maturity value of the same was Rs.1,16,300/- as on 09.05.2018. The total amount was lying deposited with the opposite parties and the complainant along with her family members and friends visited the opposite parties for making the payment and also completed the terms and conditions for getting refund of maturity of the FDRs but the opposite parties kept of lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The opposite parties were legally bound to make the payment of FDRs but their act and conduct made them deficient on their part in providing the service. Hence, the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written version submitting therein that complainant Shailja Goyal was not their consumer. The relationship between the complainant and society is of Member and society. The membership by the complainant, as stated, was wrong and no amount had been deposited through alleged membership. The opposite parties never delayed the matter and the statement made by the complainant was absolutely baseless and against the terms and conditions of the scheme. According to the agreement, no claim could be made beyond the terms and conditions. There was no agreement to provide 12% compound interest or 24% per annum interest, rather, as per the terms and conditions of Clause 4, after the date of maturity, no interest could be paid. There was no consumer dispute. The dispute, if any, existed between the society and its members, which could be resolved under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. As per the conditions, no additional interest was payable in case the maturity was taken after the scheduled period. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case file, learned District Forum held that receipts (Exhibits   C-1 to C-6) were issued vide which the amount was deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties.  This fact was also not denied by the opposite parties. On the other hand, the opposite parties relied on the document (Exhibit R1/A) as per which, the complainant had joined as Member in the society and got deposited the amount with the society, which amount was lying deposited yet nothing was brought on record from which it could be presumed that the opposite parties had made the payment of maturity amount of the FDRs to the complainant and they ever made any offer to the complainant to receive the payment. The blank application form (Exhibit R-2) has been placed on record but it did not bear signature of the complainant or any other person. The opposite parties also did not place on record any statement of account showing the outstanding balance of the complainant against the opposite parties. Non-payment of the amount of FDRs after the date of maturity by the opposite parties to the complainant was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by them.

5.      The stand of the complainant that she had invested various sums of money by way of FDRs and the maturity value of the same was Rs.1,16,300/- till 09.05.2018 has not been disputed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant got deposited various sums of money with the society and the amount was still lying deposited with the society. No evidence has been brought on record by them to show that the opposite parties had made an attempt to pay the maturity amount of the FDRs to the complainant. Non-payment of the amount of FDRs along with interest amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.

6.      The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. 

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 25.07.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.