New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Nov 19, 2019-Tuesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Tuesday, Nov 19, 2019

Chandigarh cooperative society gets the stick for denying return on investment

chandigarh Updated: Oct 14, 2019 01:15 IST

Hindustantimes
         

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited and Sahara India Pariwar to refund maturity amounts worth over ₹12 lakh to three complainants along with ₹10,500 compensation to each of them.

Jaspreet Brar, 69, a resident of Sector 80, Mohali, had filed a complaint against Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Uttar Pradesh, and Sahara India Pariwar, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. He alleged that he had been depositing a fixed amount with the two parties for last some years in the shape of a fixed deposit receipt (FDR), which was being renewed after expiry of the earlier FDR. The rate of interest of the FDR was 13.50% per annum (pa).

He alleged to have deposited a sum of ₹6,37,909 on August 30, 2017, which matured on February 24, 2018. On maturity of the FDR, he was to get ₹6,79,373.

Brar also contended that after the maturity date, he did not renew the FDR and requested the society to pay him the maturity amount but it was not paid to him despite repeated requests and serving of a legal notice.

‘COMPLAINT STANDS FALSE’

The opposition parties contested that the complaint was misconceived, vexatious and the complainant was not even a consumer. They further pleaded that the relationship between the complainant and them was that of a member and a society and therefore, the consumer complaint was not maintainable.

It was admitted that the complainant had shared a sum of ₹6,37,909 on August 30, 2017, under Sahara FDR Scheme in Chandigarh but the remaining allegations were denied by the opposition parties. Pleading that there was no deficiency in their service, the opposition parties sought dismissal of the complaint made against them.

There were two similar complaints filed by Lakhwinder Bikaramjit Singh (having maturity amount ₹3,25,160) and NS Brar (₹74,742 and ₹1,47,412).

THE JUDGEMENT

After listening to both the parties, the forum observed, “It is established that the complainants have deposited the amount (s) by way of FDRs with the opposition parties and they have failed to refund the same to the complainants on maturity of the FDRs despite their repeated requests and serving of a legal notice. It clearly amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on part of the opposition parties.”

“Therefore, in all these cases, the deficiency in service is proved. In the result, all these complaints are allowed,” the forum said.

It directed the opposition parties to refund the maturity amount (s) to the respective complainants with interest @ 9% from the respective due dates of payments. It also directed them to pay ₹5,000 to each of the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, and ₹5,500 as the cost of litigation.