Complaint filed on: 23-02-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 30-09-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.62/2022 

Ananda Thirtha S/o Raghavendra Rao

Aged about 64 years, R/at “Srinidhi”

Venkatadri Extension, Belagumba,

Tumakuru-572 104.

(By Sri.B.A.Gururaja, Advocate)

V/s

1.       The Branch Manager/Sector Manager,

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd,

1^st Floor, Vidhya Complex, 2^nd Cross, S.S.Puram,

Tumakuru-572 102.

2.       The Regional Manager,

          Sahara India Pariwar,

          Bo-1, Church Street,

          Brigade Road, Bangalore.  

(OP1 by Sri. A.Chaluvaraju, Adv.,)

(OP2 – Served absent)

O R D E R:

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint was filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party No.1 - Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Opposite Party No.2- Sahara India Pariwar (hereinafter called as OPs) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs.8,84,289/- with interest at 24% p.a. till realization of the entire amount and to pay Rs.3,00,000-00 towards damages as compensation for mental agony and other incidental and grant cost and such other relief.  

2.       It is the case of complainant that, he had deposited the amount under the scheme “SAHARA.A. SELECT & SAHARA.Y. SELECT as follows:

Further, the complainant submitted that after maturity of the said amount, the complainant approached the OP and requested to pay the maturity amount, but the OP dodged the same in one or the other pretexts and OP forced the complainant to re-deposit the total amount in some other scheme and refused to settle the account.  Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel on 10.01.2022, but though received notice, the OP did not pay the maturity amount with interest.  Hence, the complaint. 

3.       In spite of service of notice against OP No.1, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel, but later did not turn up further.  The complainant impleaded the OP No.2 and after allowing impleading application, notice was sent to OP No.2, but though the OP No.2 received notice remained absent. 

 4.      The complainant counsel filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C12. 

5.       On hearing the arguments of learned counsel for complainant and perusal of the documents, the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

6.        Our findings aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

7. Point Nos.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the OPs have failed to return the deposited amount and interest amount. The complainant in the affidavit evidence reiterated the averments of complaint.

8.       To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.C1 to C9 /Certificates, Ex.C10/Legal notice, Ex.C11&C12/RPAD receipt and acknowledgment.

9.       It is seen that the complainant has deposited certain amounts under the scheme “SAHARA.A. SELECT & SAHARA.Y. SELECT as shown in the table below:

10.     The counsel for complainant submits at the time of arguments that though the complainant requested the OPs several times to pay maturity amount, but the OPs did not pay the maturity amount and directed the complainant to re-deposit the amounts under different scheme and finally refused to pay the maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice, but after receipt of the legal notice, the OPs remained silent.  The OPs have not produced any documents to disprove the allegation made by the complainant against them by appearing before this Commission.  This goes to show that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Further, the complainant claimed interest @ 24% on the maturity amount till payment.  But now the bank rate of interest has been reduced, as such the complainant is entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till payment.

11. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OPs, the complainant compelled to approach this Commission.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000-00 towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000-00 towards litigation of the cost. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part. 

The OPs 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,14,700/- 1,15,847/-, 47,683/-, 24,423/-, 86,800/-, 86,800/-, 97,650/-, 97,650/- and 97,650/- to the complainant with interest @ 8% PA from the date of maturity i.e. 23,05,2021, 23,05,2021, 30,06,2021, 30,06,2021, 13,06,2020, 13,06,2020, 13.06,2020 13.06.2020, 13.06,2020 respectively till payment.

Further, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000-00 as litigation cost.