DATE OF DISPOSAL: 03.10.2023
PER SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- under Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited on 28.06.2014 for a term of one year vide Receipt No. 80391548388. The term was over i.e. on 28.06.2015 and the maturity amount was Rs.5,500/- on completion of the term. The complainant approached the O.P. for payment the amount as per the instrument issued to him. The O.P asked to furnish relevant bond and application to that effect for getting the payment. As per the instruction, the complainant submitted the relevant documents such as Bank Account details, Bond copy and Adhar card. The O.P. assured to make payment after obtain the advice from Head Office. In the meanwhile about six months elapsed but no payment released. In last month March 2018 the complainant visited the office of O.P and asked for payment again the O.P. assured to make payment within one month but on expire of one month neither the O.P. make any payment nor pickup complainant phone call. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P the complainant prayed to direct the O.P to pay the matured amount of Rs.5,500/- with 12% interests per annum, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- in the best interests of justice.
3. The O.P. appeared through his advocate and filed written version. It is stated that the present complaint has been filed by complainant for the payment of the maturity amount without submitting required documents, against the Account/Receipt No. 80391548388 of Rs.5,000/- under the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd and the account has matured on 28.06.2015. The claim of the complainant is based on false and baseless grounds. At the outset the contents of the complainant are baseless, false and fabricated not tenable in law, deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. The complainant had approached to Hon’ble Forum after completion of so long time from the date of matured or from the cause of action and as per record the cause of action has been arisen in the matter on 28.06.2015. The complainant has filed the complaint for misguide or for try to solve his vested interests for getting extra more money from company. This is violation of core/sole object of consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this is matter of extra time barred or out of limitation period matter the concerned complainant can file complaint within 02 years of the maturity period but our esteemed depositors has filed the complaint at least after completion of 03 years of the same. The complainant has failed to establish the facts as alleged by him in complaint and has filed this false complaint deliberately with ulterior motives to blackmail and extort money. Hence such complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, both parties are found absent on repeated calls. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- on dated 28.06.2014 and entitled to receive Rs.5,500/- on 28.06.2015 from the O.P. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.
Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
Further it is manifest from the written version of the op that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant has not condone the delay of 3 years under Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission relied upon the principle on the ‘continuous or recurring Cause of Action’ laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. The Central Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 2514 Of 2020 & Civil Appeal No. 2515 Of 2020 where the Hon’ble Court held that “the cause of action continues as long as the amount is not refunded.” The said principle of law is applicable in the present case. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is just and proper that the complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against the O.P. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.5,500.00 only along with 7% interest per annum to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 14.05.2018 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realisation of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 03.10.2023.
