Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/201/2020

Surender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	201/2020
Date of Institution	:	18.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	02.06.2022

 

                       

                            

Surender son of Sh.Bachan aged about 48 years resident of House No.447/2, Small Flat, Maloya, Chandigarh.

    ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Command & Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Sector Manager-Sh.Anil Kumar Sharma.
3. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager Sh.Arun Kumar Singh.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

        

         Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant

         Sh.Nitin Sharma, Adv. for the OPs.

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that she was enticed by the OPs by stating that if the complainant invests the amount in the OPs scheme then the complainant would get higher rate of interest on the invested amount after three months.  Allured by the assurances of the OPs, on 24.07.2009, the complainant invested Rs.10,000/- against receipt No.239709320203 and on its maturity i.e. 24.07.2019, the complainant was to get Rs.31,060/-.  After the date of maturity, the complainant requested the OPs to release the maturity amount(s) by submitting the requisite documents but the same have not been released despite repeated requests and rather she was asked to reinvest the said amount in another scheme of the OPs to which she refused. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.       
2.      The OPs contested the consumer complaint and took preliminary objections inter alia that one contempt petition No.412/2012 in Civil Appeal No.9813/2012  was fixed for 27.09.2021 and yet it is not listed for further hearing.  It has further been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 11.12.2013 has directed that Sahara Companies shall not part with movable and immovable properties until further orders.  It has further been submitted that there was never an intention to cause any loss to any of the applicant and due to this all the members were given option to take back their money with 8% interest but the members who opted to stay back with the company has done an election. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

4.      The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.      Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the written arguments of the OPs.
7.      From the receipt No.239709320203 dated 24.07.2009  (Annexure C-1) issued by the OP-Company, it  is corroborated that the complainant invested Rs.10,000/- with the OPs and on its maturity i.e. 24.07.2019, the complainant was to get Rs.31,060/-.  
8.       The OPs took a stand in the written statement that an embargo has been imposed upon the Company not to part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders, vide order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.  Here we are not inclined to accept this plea of the OPs so taken in the written statement/written arguments for justifying non-refund of the amount invested by the complainant under the Scheme of the OPs as the order(s) so relied upon by the OPs relates to properties of M/s Aamby Valley Ltd.  The OPs, thus, cannot take shelter of the aforesaid orders.
9.      Under these circumstances, the OPs have committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by not releasing the maturity amount to the complainant on its maturity despite his repeated requests. 
10.      In view of the above discussion, the consumer complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-
    1. to refund the maturity amount i.e. Rs.31,060/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its maturity i.e. 24.07.2019 till its realization.
    2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
11.      This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

02.06.2022                                          

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (B.M .SHARMA)

MEMBER