Date of filling: 06/03/2020

Date of Judgment: 30/03/2023

Mrs. Ashoka Guha Roy (Bera), Hon’ble Member

            The instant complain case has been filled under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by SRI PRONAB KUMAR SANYAL being the complainant herein alleging deficiencies in service on the part of the opposite parties (Referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) HUMARA INDIA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, Branch Office at 1/4J, Paschim Putiary,P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata-700041.2)Regional Manager, HUMARA INDIA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,  at Mangal Jyoti, 227/2, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Poluice Station Bhawanipur, Kolkata-700020 (3) Regional Manager, Sahara India Pariwar (Corporate Office), 2A, Sahara India Sadan, Shakespeare Sarani, Middleton Row, (opposite Birla Planetarium) P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700071.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant is an octogenarian person being allured by the lucrative investments scheme of the opposite party the complainant from time to time invested all his hard earned retirement benefits  in various schemes of the OP Company for a term of  10 years with assurance to guarantied return along with monthly interest.. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,60,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Sixty Thousand) only with the OP under various scheme, lists of which as follows:- 

            Accordingly, the OP Company issued the above MIS Certificates in favour of the complainant namely Pranab Kumar Sanyal and also duly acknowledged the payment of the receipts made to the op. Company.

That the complainant states that aforesaid two investments bearing no. 964000095908 amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- and investment bearing no 964000095909 of Rs. 1,20,000/- on its maturity on 10-04-2019 and on 07-05-2019 respectively, as per decision taken by the management under control of Mr. Subrata Roy, Saharasri the chairperson of Sahara India Pariwar, the opposite parties did not pay the matured value of the said investments to the complainant and the investment agent of the opposite parties namely Mr. Rajat Sengupta having code no. 185910255 insisted the Complainant to re-invest the matured value with the opposite parties stating that the Opposite parties has no financial capability at present to meet up the payment of matured value to its investors at large but assured the Complainant that the monthly interest on the investments will be paid shortly by the Opposite Parties without having any gap.

That the Complainant states that in the meantime, Mr. Subrata Roy, Saharasri has circulated his statement through youtube, a web channel to the investors at large and also had published in a famous Bengali daily namely Anandabazar Patrika on 05-05-2019 wherein he has declared that the investments made by the investors are secured in the company but due to intervention of legal issues the company is not in position to meet up the payment of maturity value of the investors and he requested to the investors to bear with him and to bear with the decision taken by his company for the sake of the investor at large.

That the Complainant states that considering the statement of Mr. Subrata Roy, known as Saharasri, the Complainant being a helpless old person under tremendous mental pressure and against his will having got no other alternative had re-invested the said matured value under the instruction of said Mr. Rajat Sengupta, the investment agent of the Opposite Parties in the company of Opposite Parties for next 10 years and got accordingly two investment Certificate bearing no. 717000432012 for Rs. 1,81,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty-one Thousand) only and Investment Certificate bearing no. 717000432013 for Rs. 1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty-two Thousand) only in the name of Complainant.

But the Complainant states that having got the said renewal certificates the Complainant got astonished that the Opposite Parties whimsically adjusted and/or added the accrued interest along with principal amount Rs. 1,80,000/- and 1,20,000/- and also changed the date of renewal and/or date of maturity of said certificates voluntarily without obtaining any consent from the Complainant and/or by giving prior intimation to the complainant.

That the complainant has maintained a good relationship as an investor with the OP by making all payments to the complainant in time regarding the monthly interest arising out of investments made by the complainant time to time with the Opposite Party and never faced any problem in any month but suddenly the conduct of OP suddenly got changed and since the year 2018 the OP started making irregular payments of monthly interest on investments on monthly basis to the complainant after investing a sum of Rs. 10,60,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Sixty Thousand) only, finally stopped making payment of monthly interest on investment to the complainant from the month of April 2019 without giving any prior intimation and explanation. The complainant being an aged retired person, whose only source of income was the monthly interest of the investments made by him with the OP but every time the Branch Manager of the O.P. by giving false promises and hope to the complainant deferred the payment and till date no single payment has been made to the complainant against the said investment by the O.P. Even after receiving the notice dtd.23.7.2019 from the complainant, the O.P.s refused and neglected to give any reply to such notice. Lastly finding no other alternative the complainant was constrained to file the instant complaint against the O.P.s,

Upon notice, the OPs contested the case by filing written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and hence not maintainable as there was no cause of action to file the instant case and also denied the fact of unfair trade practice. The OP further stated that policies are regulated as per the terms and conditions and the complainant failed to comply his part of obligation of the terms and condition stipulated under the umbrella of Sahara India Pariwar. And therefore the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The OPs further submitted that the payment could not be made due to dispute with SEBI the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court imposed embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of Companiessubsequently another petition filed by the Sahara Group of Companies to lift the embargo so that they can raise many from asset and run business but the same was rejected. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant.

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant files the following documents along with the Complaint Petition:

1. Original Certificate bearing no.

2. Xerox copy of the Notice dated 23/07/2019.
3. Petition for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief.
4. B,N.A

In course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that non-refund of deposited amount along with monthly interest caused severe harassment to the complainant for which the ops are liable to pay compensation.

From the complaint petition, evidence adduced by the complainant, and the written statement filed by the parties following points have been framed:-

1. Is the complainant a consumer?

2. Are the OPs deficient in providing service?

3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as per prayed for?

Decision with reasons

All the points have taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant made 10 number of deposits in total investment of Rs. 10,60,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only till the year 2019, withmaturity amount of Rs. 10,15,000/-by the 2029 against the said 7 deposits with the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 accepted the said amount and the OPs Company issued the certificates as noted above. Such deposits were made for 10 years only.

Therefore, in our view the complainant is a consumer under OPs as per definition given U/s. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986 and the OPs were the service providers of the complainant as per definition of U/s. 2(o) C.P. Act, 1986.

       We find that admittedly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,60,000/- only till the year 2019,- the acknowledgement receipts and the certificates are the proof of such transaction for a period of 10 years with total accumulated Rs.10,15,000/- up to date interest as per norms of OPs. Admittedly this Commission has territorial and as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this case. Admittedly the case has been filed within the period of limitation of two years. Therefore, we find and hold that the case is             maintainable and the complainant is a consumer under the OP Company.

Now, in order to ascertain, whether the OPs were deficient or not we have to consider theevidence of the complaint once again.

      It is evident from the evidence of the complaint that the complainant invested / deposited under of Humara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. with its maturity value amounting to Rs.10,15,000/- and OPs Company issued certificates.

      The specific contention of the OPs, due to an embargo order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under jurisdiction of the Apex Court the payment has remained stopped temporarily. On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that inspite of the embargo has been imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the OP did not hesitate to continue/carry on with new investment plan under the Scheme of Humara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. The instant scheme was opened on 2018 and continued till date. Therefore, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the OPs.

The OP stated in its W.V. that the complainant violated the terms and condition stipulated under scheme of Humara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd ,  on argument the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant pointed out that the clause contained in the Certificate issued by the Scheme under the umbrella of  Sahara India Pariwar which is written on its opposite page has been violated by the OPs. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the deposited amount along with MIS. It is the deficiency of the OP not to make payment of the MIS as well as maturity in time. The complainant is not responsible for the internal disturbance of the OP Company.

In our view, since the complainant is in possession of a valid fixed deposit requisites which were provided by the Ops to the complainant his parts ended up and thereafter, it was for the   Ops to release the maturity amount when they are unable to pay the monthly interest, which they did not. At the time of investment the Ops promised to pay the monthly interest along with maturity amount but subsequently, the ops stopped the monthly interest payment neither did pay the maturity amount as on date, which amounts to deficiency in service and also indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part, hence they are liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 10,60,000/- alongwith monthly interest from the date of respective date of investment to the complainant. Thus the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.   

Hence, it is

O  R  D  E  R  E  D

CC/109/2020 is allowed on contest against the O.P.s

The O.P.s are directed to pay Rs. 10,60,000/- to the complainant together with interest as per norms of the opposite parties i.e. as agreed in the certificate from the date of  investment until realization.(while calculating the rate of interest  monthly interest already paid shall be adjusted.)

The O.P.s are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within the aforesaid period of 2 months. In default of payment, the entire sum shall carry interest@9% p.a. till final realization.

On payment of the sum by the O.P.s, the complainant shall hand over the original receipt/certificate to the O.P.s.