| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.52 of 18.2.2020 Decided on: 3.8.2021 Chandan Yadav aged about 36 , son of Amar Nath, resident of Shaheed Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Sahara India , Sector Office: Sethi Complex, Mall Road, Near Modi College Chowk, Opp. Polo Ground, Lower Mall Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
- Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, registered Office:Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024,through its Managing Director . …………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Munish Mittal, counsel for complainant. Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Chandan Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sahara India and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the OPs having membership No.25921800047 and deposited the following amounts with them in the accounts opened on 16.2.2018, for a period of 12 months in the Sahara Minor-12 months SCCSL scheme.
and accordingly he deposited in total Rs.1,09,200/- in six accounts. It is averred that after completion of one year the complainant approached the OPs and requested for the disbursement of the amountalongwith interest but the OPs did not release any amount, which caused mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to release the amount of Rs.1,09,200/- alongwith 9% per annum interest w.e.f. 16.2.2018 to 16.2.2020 and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit. - Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands; that the complainant is claiming payment of that amount which was shared under Scheme Sahara Minor-12 months SCCSL, scheme code 930127 of Rs.1,09,200/- for 12 months vide different policies; that Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited is duly registered society and the complainant is a member of Society, thus relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society and the Hon’ble Commission has no territorial jurisdiction; that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that the complainant himself contacted the OPs to become a member of society and shared Rs.1,09,200/- for 12 months under the scheme in question after duly understanding the terms and conditions of the scheme. Further the OPs have reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections which need not to be repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that on 16.2.2018 the complainant opened six accounts with the OPs and deposited total sum of Rs.1,09,200/- different accounts . The same was to be matured on 16.2.2019. The ld. counsel further argued that after due date nothing has been paid despite repeated requests. So the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not a consumer as such the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint, Exs.C1 to C6 are the applications vide which the accounts were opened, Ex.C7 is Aadhar card, Exs.C8 to Ex.C13 are the account statements showing the deposit of the amounts in question and Ex.C14 is the acknowledgment receipt.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.OPA of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, who has deposed as per the written reply,Ex.OP1 is the authority letter.
- From the documents, it is clear that the OPs have played a fraud with the complainant as the complainant has deposited the amount with them but after maturity till date no amount was paid by the OPs. Vide Ex.C8 to C13 are the account statements issued by the OPs vide which amount of Rs.18,450/-, 18,200, 18,200/-,18200/-,18,200/-,17,950/- respectively is shown to have been deposited. But after maturity the OPs failed to disburse any amount, which shows that the OPs have played fraud with the complainant, so they are liable to refund the actual amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,09,200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and further Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
- Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:3.8.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
