| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.341 of 28.8.2019 Decided on: 3.8.2021 Chhinderpal Kaur w/o Gurmeet Singh resident of village Sadhanwas Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad(Haryana) …………...Complainant Versus - Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director, 226024.
- Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Office; Opposite Polo Ground, Mall, Patiala, Tehsil & District Patiala, through its Branch Manager. …………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.G.S.Shergil, counsel for complainant. Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Chhinderpal Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited 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 in the month of February,2014 the OPs made the lucrative scheme for the investment in their company with higher rate of interest. Allured by the scheme, the complainant started depositing Rs.500/- every month and thereby deposited total sum of Rs.30,000/- with the OPs who issued application No.311013391569( a/c No.68555100055) in favour of the complainant to be matured on 7.2.2019 with the maturity value of Rs.38000/-. It is averred that after due date the complainant deposited relevant documents with OP No.2 for releasing the maturity amount but despite repeated requests made by the complainant, the maturity amount did not release by the OPs 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 maturity amount alongwith 18% per annum interest and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs; that the OPs are society duly registered under Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant is a member of Society ,thus relation between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society; that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that the complainant being member of the society had contributed Rs.30,000/-. 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 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 documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 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 in February,2014, the OPs made lucrative scheme for investments and complainant invested Rs.30,000/- with them by way of recurring deposit and after maturity Rs.38000/- was to be paid on 7.2.2019. The ld. counsel further argued that after due date nothing has been paid despite the fact that entire documents were deposited by the complainant. 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, Ex.C1 is the pass of recurring deposit vide which the amount of Rs.26500/- was deposited.
- 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, Ex.OP2 is Sahara M Benefit form
- 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.C1 Rs.26500/- were shown to have been deposited by the complainant by way of recurring deposit. There is no evidence on the file that amount of Rs.38,000/- was to be paid after maturity. However, as the OPs have played fraud with the complainant, so they are liable to refund the actual amount deposited by the complainant.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.26500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the respective date of deposits 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 | |
