Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/304/2020

Krishan Lal S/o Jaimal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent Shara India Co-op Society - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Kaushik

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    304 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         04.09.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 09.06.2022

 

Krishan Lal s/o Shri Jaimal Singh, r/o Neem wala dera, Dhurala, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The Superintendent, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-22502.
2. Sahara India Pariwar, Amin Road, near Gita Girls School, Kurukshetra, through its concerned officer.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Shishan Dutt Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (previously Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that on 15.07.2013, complainant had made SAHARA.M. BENEFIT Rd bearing account No.24794800439 with OP No.2 and deposited a sum of Rs.1300/- on monthly basis for the period of 5 years. At the time of opening the account with OP No.2, it assured that upon completion of 5 years, a sum of Rs.89,770/- will be paid to him. A passbook had also been issued/released in his name. Again on 05.06.2017, he made a SAHARA.Minor Rd bearing No.24796700695 with OP No.2 and deposited Rs.80/- on monthly basis and maturity period for said RD was one year from the date of opening the account. At the time of opening the account, OPs assured that upon completing of one year, a sum of Rs.33260/- will be paid to him. A passbook had also been issued/released in his name. After completion, he visited the office of OP No.2 and requested the OP No.2 to release the entire amount as per assurance given by it, but OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and lastly refused to pay the same. After that, complainant made various requests to the OPs to make payment of RD amount, but they failed to pay the same, due to which, she exposed great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements denying the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The OPs have admitted the contents regarding depositing of Rs.1300/- on monthly basis and Rs.80/- on daily basis in the form of Rd with them. It is submitted that the OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and complainant is a member of said Society, therefore, relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and if any dispute between the Society and Member arose, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The OPs had not entered into any agreement with the complainant or received any contribution from the complainant to provide any service. If complainant who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per Clause 11 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                The complainant, in support of his case, tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed her evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that on 15.07.2013, complainant had made SAHARA.M. BENEFIT Rd bearing account No.24794800439 with OP No.2 and deposited a sum of Rs.1300/- on monthly basis for the period of 5 years. At the time of opening the account with OP No.2, it assured that upon completion of 5 years, a sum of Rs.89,770/- will be paid to him. A passbook had also been issued/released in his name. Again on 05.06.2017, hthe complainant made a SAHARA.Minor Rd bearing No.24796700695 with OP No.2 and deposited Rs.80/- on monthly basis and maturity period for said RD was one year from the date of opening the account. At the time of opening the account, OPs assured that upon completing of one year, a sum of Rs.33260/- will be paid to him. A passbook had also been issued/released in his name. After completion, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and requested the OP No.2 to release the entire amount as per assurance given by it, but OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and lastly refused to pay the same, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

8.                Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and admitted the contents regarding depositing Rs.1300/- on monthly basis and Rs.80/- on daily basis by the complainant with the OPs. It is further argued that the OPs are Society duly registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and complainant is a member of said Society, therefore, relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and if any dispute between the Society and Member arose, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The OPs had not entered into any agreement with the complainant or received any contribution from the complainant to provide any service. If complainant who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                At the outset, learned counsel for the OPs raised objection that the complainant is not a consumer, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but this contention of OPs is devoid of any force, because, perusal of case file shows that the complainant deposited the RD amount with the OPs, as such, he availed the services of the OPs and became the consumer of OPs, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10.              Learned counsel for the OPs further raised objections that if the complainant, who is Member of Society, had any grievance or dispute with the Society, then the complainant was bound to refer her dispute before Arbitrator, as per Clause 11 of the terms & conditions of scheme Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. But this contention of OPs is also without any force, because, as per settled law, remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is an additional remedy and can be availed by the complainant, if he does not wish to avail the relief under the Arbitration Act, therefore, the present complaint, before this Commission, is maintainable and this Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same.

11.              Now coming to the merits of the case.

12.              There is no dispute that the complainant opened a SAHARA.M. BENEFIT RD account with OP No.2 bearing account No.24794800439 and Membership No.24791201070 on deposition of 60 monthly installments of Rs.1300/- each, from 15.7.2013 to 15.06.2018 vide document Ex.C-3 and deposited total Rs.78,000/- in the said RD account vide document Ex.C-5. Similarly, there is also no dispute that the complainant opened SAHARA.Minor Rd account with OP No.2 bearing account No.24796700695 and Membership No.24791500250 on deposition of daily installments of Rs.80/- each for 12 months from 05.06.2017 to 25.06.2018 vide document Ex.C-4 and deposited total Rs.31,300/- in the said RD account vide document Ex.C-6.

13.              The grievance of the complainant is that after completion of maturity period of said RDs accounts, when he requested the OPs to release the maturity amount with interest, they refused to pay the same.

14.              Now-a-days finance companies attracts the innocent people to deposit/invest their blood sweat earnings with them with the lure of higher interest rate, and when the time comes to return the said deposit/investment with interest to those people, then these finance companies refused to pay the same or run away by closing their office/business overnight, by taking the entire life's earning/deposited capital of those innocent people. In the case in hand, the OPs also allured the complainant to deposit/invest his money with them as two RDs account, by saying that after completion of maturity period of said RDs, he will receive the handsome amount and as such, by falling into their trap, the complainant deposited Rs.78000/- and Rs.31380/- respectively with the OPs as RDs account, but after completion of maturity period of said RDs account, when the complainant demanded the total maturity amount with interest from the OPs, they refused to release the same, rather, they kept the said amount with them even after the maturity date and using the same. Due to non-releasing the maturity amount of RDs account to the complainant, by the OPs, he suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss, without any fault on his part, which is an act gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, on the part of the OPs. For their above act of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, the OPs, not only liable to release the total maturity amount of RDs account, to the complainant along with the interest, but also liable to pay the compensation amount and litigations expenses to the complainant.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to release the total maturity amount of both RDs account (as per the scheme shown in documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C4) to the complainant, alongwith interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.09.2020, till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to her along with Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act, against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:09.06.2022.

    

                                                                              (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)         President,

Member.                    Member.                                        DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.