Delhi

East Delhi

CC/266/2021

ANUPURNA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA CREDIT COOPRATIVE SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 266/2021

 

	Mrs. Anupurna Devi W/o Sh. Bal Kishan R/o 2/49, Pandav Road, Bhim Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 32.	….Complainant
Versus
	Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Office at : Plot No.3, B-Block, Rajendra Santosh House, Shoping Complex, Dilshad Garden, Delhi – 110095. (Authorized Centre)   Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Office at : Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024. Regd. No. MSCS/CR/333/2010	…….OP1         ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 20.07.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 14.03.2023

Judgment Passed on: 24.03.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order by :Sh. Ravi Kumar, Member

 

JUDGEMENT

          The Complainant, a Sr. Citizen lady, has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs by stating that the amount taken by the OPs under Sahara.A.Select Scheme for fixed period of 18 months which was due for maturity on 30.06.2020 but was not paid to her.

          The Complainant has contended in her complaint that she had deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.12.2018 vide FDR No.925 009059864 (Certificate No. 925009059864 & Membership No. 55391800121) and the maturity date was 30.06.2020 for an amount of Rs.232600/- and also  Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.12.2018 vide FDR No.925 009059865 (Certificate No. 925009059865 & Membership No. 55391800121) and the maturity date was 30.06.2020 for an amount of Rs.232600/-. She has enclosed copy of both the FDRs alongwith her complaint.

          However, upon maturity of the above two FDRs, the Complainant visited the office of the OPs many times but they did not pay FDR maturity amount and she has filed present complaint seeking following prayer:

• Direction be given to OPs to make the payment of the FDRs to the Complainant.
• Direction be given to OPs to pay interest thereon at Govt. Rate till release of the payment.
• To pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment.
• To pay Rs.15000/- as litigation charges.

Notice was issued to OP who has filed its reply wherein it is stated that Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to try the dispute between Co-operative Societies and its members and all such disputes shall be referred for arbitration. The Complainant is a member of a Society and is not a consumer. The Complainant decided to become member of the Society by opening her account bearing No.55397200657 and 55397200658 on 31.12.2018 and she contributed Rs.2,00,000/- each in the account for a period of 18 months under the Scheme – Sahara.A.Select of which has matured on 30.06.2020 but due to excess demand of interest by the Complainant on maturity amount, the payment could not be made and there is no provision to get interest on the maturity in the said Scheme. OP has mentioned that they have enclosed specimen Application Form as annexure to their reply (however, no such annexure is available on court file). There is no deficiency on their part as they have never refused to make payment of the maturity amount. The OP has also contended that onus lies on the Complainant to establish territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

OP has further stated that as per Clause 4 of Terms & Conditions of the Scheme no additional interest would be payable on the maturity amount, if the payment is made after the schedule period which reads as follows:

“4. Maturity:-

After completion of 18 months from the date of opening of account Maturity amount shall be paid to the member account holder along with the interest as per the account settlement chart. No additional interest would be paid on the maturity amount, if taken after the scheduled period.”

          The Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the reply of the OP denying the contentions and has stated that relationship between her and the OP is based on FDR receipts. The FDRs were made by the OP and the assurance was given that whenever the Complainant would take the payment then OPs shall be liable to pay interest to her. She visited the office of the OP at Vishwas Nagar, Delhi and submitted her documents but later on with malafide intention the documents were returned with the advice to submit the same to OP’s Dilshad Garden, Delhi office and when she approached there then the officials of the OP refused to receive the documents nor released the payment of the said FDRs.

          During the course of hearing in this Commission, OP filed application dated 15.09.2022 for dismissal of the complaint which shall be disposed alongwith this Order.

          The Complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit and OP has also filed its evidence by way of affidavit.

          This Commission has heard the argument of both sides and has perused the documents on record.

          The controversy revolves within a narrow compass as to whether the OPs are liable to pay maturity amount of both the FDRs on 30.06.2020 to the Complainant who had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in each FDR on 31.12.2018 and delayed period interest thereon till release of payment.

          The OP has taken the preliminary objection that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue as the same is between their member (Complainant) and the Society. However, this argument of the OP is untenable as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Co-op. Group Housing Society (Civil Appeal No. 64/2010) has widened the scope of Consumer Protection Act by holding that disputes between the members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Fora. In view of the same, the objection of the OP is not maintainable.

          The OP has also raised objection that the onus is on the Complainant to establish that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. On perusal of the Aadhar Card of the Complainant enclosed with the Complainant she is resident of Vishwas Nagar, Delhi which falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore, the contention of the OP is untenable.

          It is not under dispute that the Complainant deposited the above said amount in two FDRs under Sahara.A.Select scheme of the OP which was due for payment of Rs.2,32,600/- for each FDR on maturity on 30.06.2020.

          The Complainant has contended that upon maturity she approached Vishwas Nagar office of the OP and submitted the documents however, the same were returned to her with the advice to submit the same at OP’s Dilshad Garden Office. She approached there also but neither documents were taken from her nor payment of FDRs was released to her.

          The OP has admitted in their reply as well as in their evidence by way of affidavit that they are ready to make the payment of maturity amount.

          The issue now to be examined as to when did the Complainant approach the OP for release of the maturity amount and whether after due date of maturity not paying the interest on the maturity amount is right and legal on the part of the OP.

          The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Vs. Union of India (WP No.669/2021, 670/2021 and 817/2021) vide order dated 22.03.2022 made adverse observations about the conduct of the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society (which is OP in this complaint also) and directed them to not to collect any further deposit. Hon’ble High Court has also observed that ‘there are scores of intervention applications that have been filed in these writ petitions by the investors who have alleged that their monies invested with the petitioner societies have matured since 2017 and thereafter and they have not been repaid by the petitioner societies…..we prima facie find that there are score of investors who complain of non-payment of their dues. These investors appear to be small-time investors who may have invested their hard earned life savings into the petitioners-societies and are likely to suffer irreparable loss in case their interests are not protected.’  

OP is taking shelter under Clause 4 of the Scheme(though no such document in filed by OP on court file) and taking the stand that they are not liable to pay interest after the due date is questionable as the payment of the FDR maturity amount was due on 30.06.2020 and there was no need to make the depositor run from pillar to post to get her due maturity amount and OP after verifying their record should have released the maturity amount in the Bank account of the depositors by way of NEFT etc. which is done by other institutions. However the intention of the OP is not to pay the maturity amount to the OP and merely by stating in their Reply and evidence by way of affidavit that it was ready to pay the Maturity Amount is not in consonance with the conduct of the OP and if their intention was so then they should have released the Maturity amount at least during the pendency of the complaint before this Commission reserving their right to contest the issue of interest later on, however that was also not done.

          The Complainant has stated in her Rejoinder that after maturity date she visited the Office of the OP at Vishwas Nagar and submitted the documents which were returned to her with the advice  to go to Dilshad Garden office of the OP where she went also but neither her documents were taken nor the payment was released. Thus a Senior Citizen lady investor of OP is made to suffer by running to one Office to another Office of OP without any payment made to her of the maturity amount and delayed period interest for no fault of her.

The OP is enjoying the funds of the Complainant from 31.12.2018 till date and the maturity amount of both the FDRs is Rs.2,32,600/- each and OP is not justified in taking the stand that under Clause 4 of the Terms & Conditions of the Scheme (OP has not filed the relating document before this Commission) and it has also not controverted the stand of the Complainant that upon maturity she visited Vishwas Nagar office of the OP which was the Authorized Center as mentioned in both the FDRs and she submitted the documents also but the same were returned without making the payment and she was asked to file the documents in OP’s Dilshad Garden Office where also she went also but neither the documents were taken from her nor payment was released to her.

Neither paying the Maturity amount on due date nor paying interest on the delayed period taking shelter under Clause 4 of Terms & Conditions amounts to deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice on the part OP.

Taking huge deposit from innocent depositors and issuing FDRs and later not paying the amount on maturity date speaks volumes about the conduct of the OP.   

Before parting with the Order, the Commission also dismisses the pending Application of the OP1 to dismiss the complaint of the Complainant which is on the same ground as taken by them in the main case as not maintainable on account of reasons already stated herein in this order.

Thus there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice established on the part of OP in not paying the Maturity amount of both FDRs and this Commission orders as follows:

• OP1 and OP2 (Jointly and severally) shall pay Rs.4,65,200/- being maturity amount of both the FDRs alongwith interest @7% p.a. with effect from 30.06.2020 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of non-compliance, OP1 and OP2 (Jointly and severally) shall pay interest @9% p.a. from 30.06.2020 on Rs. Rs.4,65,200/- date till the date of realization.
• OP1 & OP2 (Jointly and severally) shall pay Rs.25000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.10000/- towards litigation charges to the Complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order.

No order as to cost.

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 24^th March, 2023.

•