Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

           This  is  a petition  filed by the  complainant  U/s. 35 of C.P.Act, 2019.

2.       The  case of the  complaint is that  the   Universal Multipurpose  Society Ltd. has been  created  for  earning  profit by  running  its  business in other  places including  at Angul District. Being influenced by the opp.parties and their  agent  the  complainant has  invested different  amounts  under the opp.parties in SUPER BB Scheme  on  30.12.2017. The   opp.parties  have issued  certificates No. 407000813657, 407000813658, 407000813659, 407000813660, 407000813661, 407000813662, 407000813663, 407000813664 & 407000813665 and  the  complainant has  invested Rs. 8500.00 Rs.21,250.00,Rs.21,250.00,

Rs.16,700,Rs.21,800.00,Rs.21,250.00,Rs.11,400.00,Rs.1,19,200.00 & Rs. 21,250.00  respectively. As per  the  certificate  of SUPER BB Scheme  the  fixed    certificate  holder  is entitled to  get interest on the deposited amount, membership joining  point  amount and  other  benefits. It  was also  agreed that  under the  said  scheme the complainant is to  get  the deposited amount  along with interest and  membership amount after expiry  of  36 months  from the  date of  deposit. After 36  months  the opp.parties  did not  repay the  amount  due to the  complainant  inspite of  his   several  approaches  personally to the  Branch Manager (opp.party No.1) and    others  through  telephones. It is    further  alleged that   when he   submitted  a written application to opp.party No.1  he  did not  receive the same and  refused to   disburse  the  amount  due to the  complainant. Due  to such  conduct of the opp.parties  who  have adopted  unfair trade practice  the  complainant  was   harassed  and  sustained  mental  agony. There is  gross  deficiency  in service  of the  opp.parties. Finding  no   other  ways the complainant has filed the  present  complaint  before  this  Commission  for  necessary  direction  to the opp.parties to  disburse the  amount  due   to  him along  with   reliefs.

3.       Notices  were  despatched  to all the opp.parties  through Regd. Post with  A.D  on 21.01.2021 and  the   postal  receipts are  available on the  case record.

4.       During hearing  the  complainant  prayed for  deletion of opp.party No.2  and accordingly  by order dt. 24.11.2022  the opp.party No.2 has been deleted. The opp.party No.1  has  received the  notice on 22.01.2021   which  appears  from the A.D  available  in the  case record. Inspite of  notice  opp.party No. 1 & 3  have neither  appeared  in person  nor  any  person  legally  authorised by  them  appeared   before this  Commission  to  participate in the  hearing. However, on 30.11.2022  the  memo   and  a  petition  filed by   Mr. Pani was   put-up  for consideration  and   rejected on the  ground  of  want of   his authority  on  behalf of opp.party No.1.

5.       No written statement  was filed by the opp.parties.

6.       The  complaint  filed by the  complainant  before this  Commission is supported  with  affidavit  which  has been  notarised  before the Notary Narendra Ku.Nanda. From the  complaint petition it is  clear that the  complainant  has  deposited  several  amounts  before the opp.parties on 30.12.2017  under SUPER BB Scheme  . He has also  filed  the photo copies of the  certificate and  other documents  issued  by  one  authorised  signatory of the opp.parties’ namely Sanjeev  Mohanty. The  contains of  the  complaint  petition that the complainant has deposited Rs.8500.00 Rs.21,250.00,Rs.21,250.00,Rs.16,700,Rs.21,800.00,Rs.21,250.00,

Rs.11,400.00,Rs.1,19,200.00 & Rs. 21,250.00  under SUPER BB Scheme is  corroborated by  the  photo copies of  certificates issued to him  by the opp.parties. The allegations made by the  complainant that the  amount   was  deposited  as  fixed  deposit is  not  corroborated  the contains   of the  certificate  issued in his favour  or  any  other  documents. On the  other  hand  from the  photo copy   of the  certificates  filed by the  complainant      it   appears that the  amount  paid  by the  complainant  to the  opp.parties are  contribution  under  Saharayn Universal Muptipurpose Society Ltd. From  the   documents  it is   clear that the  duration  of the  scheme   was  36  months   from the date of  deposit. There is  no  material  before this Commission that the  opp.parties  are  liable to pay  interest  as  prescribed on the   fixed  deposits .However  at Clause- 4  of the  documents  issued  by the  opp.parties  it  is  clear that :-

“Members  shall be  free to withdraw his/her contribution any time after the  expiry  of  36 months  from the  date  of payment of the  contribution, in such a case the  society may compensate the  member by giving  a  benefit  on the  contribution  made by such member of  an amount  not  exceeding Rs.58,000.00  on a contribution of Rs. 1 lakh  in form of cash  or  cash  equivalent  as  decided by  the board of directors  of the  society  and it  vary  lesser  or  higher contribution”.

          Admittedly  the  complainant   who is  the  so  called  member of the  society  has  invested  the  deposit  and  entitled for  compensation  of the  amount  deposited by  him  after expiry  of 36  months. It is  admitted that the complainant has  deposited all the  amount on 30.12.2017 and  entitled to  get  back  the  same along  with  compensation after expiry  of  36  months.

7.       The  company of the  opp.parties  has  adopted  unfair trade practice and  described the  amount  invested by the  complainant  as  members contribution towards  the  company  under SUPER BB Scheme  instead  of   describing  the  complainant  as  a  depositor. Whatever  it   may  be,  the complainant   has deposited the  amounts  with  opp.parties and the   company  of the opp.parties  has got a duty  to refund  the  same  amount  along with other  benefits  after expiry  of  36  months. By using  the  word  contribution  by the members  ,the  opp.parties  cannot  escape  from its  liability  to repay the  amount  due to the  complainant. The  learned  counsel for the  complainant  relied  on  decision passed by the Learned  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh  in Ram Kanwar Vrs. Sahara India Pariwar  Pvt. Ltd.  on 28.09.2021, the  judgement  passed  by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil  Appeal  No. 64  of 2010  Virender Jain Vrs. Alaknanda Coopertative  Group Housing Society  Ltd. & others, Civil Appeal No. 92  of 1998, The Secretary,Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society  Vrs. M.Lalitha  (dead) through LRs. & Others    and  submitted that the  complainant  is  a consumer and  there is  deficiency  of  service  by the opp.parties for  which  this Commission has  ample  jurisdiction to  entertain the complaint  and  to pass  necessary  order. The relief  provided  under  any other Act  is  not a  bar  on  the  complainant  to  approach  this  Commission  to  get the reliefs.

8.       So  after going   through the  materials  on record it is  clear that  there is  deficiency in service  by the opp.parties  and  there is  adoption of  unfair  trade  practice by  the opp.parties. It is  also clear from the  case  record that the complainant is  entitled  to the  amount  deposited by  him along with   the  compensation  due  from  the opp.parties  after expiry  of  36 months  from the date of    his  deposit.   

9.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case  be and  same  is  allowed  in  part, exparte  against the  opp.parties. The opp.parties  are directed to pay the  deposited  amount  along with  compensation to the  complainant  which   he is  legally entitled after   the  expiry  of  36  months. The opp.parties  are also directed to pay  an amount of Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)only as compensation and Rs.5000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) only  towards  litigation expenses. The  opp.parties  are  further  directed to comply the  order  within  a period  of one  month  receipt  of this  order, failing  which   they are liable  to pay interest @ 16% per annum,  on the  amount  due  by the  complainant.