JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.22,362/-along with 12% interest from 13.56.2021 till the date of payment, pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation fees”.
Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a permanent resident of the village Rankei, under Tirtol police station and in the District of Jagatsinghpur which comes under this Commission. The complainant being persuaded by the agent of opposite parties purchased a Housing Bond of Rs.8,000/- in fully convertible paid up in his name and the Bond was issued by opposite parties and was promised to supply suitable housing plot within 10 years. After five/six years the agent of the opposite parties came to the complainant and influenced him to purchase another scheme as the housing scheme became failure. The complainant to save his money agreed to convert his earlier bond to a new scheme “F-64”Golden a double scheme of Humara India Credit Cooperative Limited of Sahara India Family on 13.01.2016 and certificate was issued vide No.465000331093 in which maturity amount mentioned as Rs.22,362/- and maturity date on 13.5.2021. Accordingly a certificate of “F-64” Golden a Double Scheme was issued to the Complainant by the opposite parties.
On 17.05.2021 the complainant approached the agent and Branch office of Sahara India at Jagatsinghpur for his maturity money the branch office told that the matter is in process the complainant would get his cheque very soon. On 11.6.2021 the complainant again approached in the Sahara Branch Office, Jagatsinghpur they did not disburse the maturity amount and even his application regarding the maturity amount. On 24.06.2021 the complainant and his brother who has also another payment issue with the opposite party sent a registered letter to the Sahara Branch Office, Jagatsinghpur. On 1.7.2021 again approached the Branch office but they refused to disburse the maturity amount hence this complaint.
The complainant filed following documents in support of the consumer complaint.
- Xerox copy of F-64 Golden Bond
- Xerox copy of complain Letter on 24.06.2021
Notice was issued to opposite parties on 19.7.2021 by Regd. Postthe counsel for opposite parties 2 & 3 did not appear before this commission and set ex-parte vide order No.09 dated 27.4.2022. The opposite party No.1 submitted his written version on 27.04.2022.
Questioning on the maintainability of the consumer complaint and denying the allegations made by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 in his written version stated that the complainant case is bad for mis joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as because the agent has not been made a party in this case. There is an Arbitration Clause in the Agreement. The opposite party stated that the complainant without depositing the relevant documents before the Branch Manager demanded the maturity amount for which they have not disburse the maturity amount.
Coming to the issue of maintainability this Commission found that one of the places of business of the opposite parties is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. As the Agent is the paid staff of the opposite parties non joinder of agent is not fatal for opposite parties and they can speak for agent and complainant is not claiming from agent but claiming from opposite parties. The causes of action to file this complaint which arose on dt.17.5.2021 as stated by the complainant is in the circumstance acceptable to us as true and is within the stipulated period of limitation and in spite of presence of arbitration clause if any as stated by the opposite party No.1, as per Civil Appeal No.23512-23513 of 2017 of Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Arbitration Clause on the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint” for these reasons the Consumer complaint is maintainable in this Commission. The complainant by depositing money with the opposite party No.1 avails the service, which stands in the footing of service provider thus derives the status of a consumer under the opposite parties as per the relevant provision of the Act.
Coming to the issue that whether the opposite parties have shown any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice towards the complainant, it is found from the record that the complainant had deposited Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) for the Scheme “F-64”Golden a double scheme of Humara India Credit Cooperative Limited of Sahara India Family on 13.01.2016 and certificate was issued vide No.465000331093 in which maturity amount mentioned as Rs.22,362/- and on 13.5.2021 being the date of maturity. But maturity amount has not been made by the concerned opposite party till date, rather contrary to it, the reason what has been stated by the opposite party No.1 was that complainant without depositing the relevant documents before the Branch Manager demanded the maturity amount for which they did not disburse the maturity amount. So in this circumstances, we are of the considered view that the opposite party No.1 has failed not only in rendering proper service but also has shown negligence which creates deficiency in service on their part. Considering the facts and circumstances and looking into the benevolent nature of the Act, the opposite party No.1 is held liable towards the complaint and hence directed to pay Rs.22,362/- (Rupees twenty two thousand three hundred sixty two only) as the total maturity amount for the above discussed “F-64” Golden Double Scheme. We also award cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation, which is to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order . The consumer complaint is disposed off accordingly.
