Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

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

2.         The  case  of the  complainant- Sumitra Dehury  is that she  is a    resident of Mishrapara,Angul  at  present  and the opp.parties are the  representatives of Co-operative Society Ltd  known  as  “Sahara Crédit Co-operative Society”. Being influenced   by the opp. Parties and their agent  the complainant  had  opened account No. 12533704668, 12533704669  on  18.06.2011 under “Sahara .E.Shine” scheme . She has deposited an amount of Rs. 13,000.00 & Rs.12,000.00  respectively  , for  which  certificates No. 351000637477 & 351000637478  issued in  her favour. Those  certificates  were accepted  as  fixed  deposits and  to be  matured  on 18.06.2019 . The   matured  amount  were  Rs. 29,432.00 & 27,168.00  in respect  of  both the  deposits. The total  maturity amount   is Rs. 56,600.00 .After the  maturity  of those deposits the opp.parties did not pay the maturity  amount  to the  complainant inspite  her  repeated  approach. By  non-payment of the maturated amount  the opp.parties have adopted  unfair trade practice. . Hence  this  case for the maturity  amount  along with  interest, compensation and  litigation expenses.

3.         Notices  were issued  to  both the opp.parties  through  Regd. Post with  A.D  on 06.12.2021. The A.D of opp.party No.1  is  available in the  case record. However, as the notice  was issued to opp.party  No. 2  in  his  correct  address through Regd. Post with  A.D it is  deemed  to be   served  in  view of  Section-27  of General Clauses Act.

4.         Inspite of  service of  notice  on both the  opp.parties  they  did not  turn-up  to file  show cause/ written version. Only  on  27.09.2022 the Learned Counsel  Sri D.K.Pani, R.P.Pattanaik & others  filed V.nama on  behalf   of opp.party No.1. On the same  day  a  petition was  filed by the learned  counsel for  opp.party No1, challenging  the  maintainability of the present  proceeding  before this  Commission. By order dtd. 14.12.2022 this Commission passed  an  order to  take-up the  issue of maintainability  along with   other  issues  at  the  time of  final  order.

5.         The  ground of maintainability   is challenged by the  opp.party No.1  on the  ground that the  complainant is  a member of  a  Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.,  for which he   is not coming under the definition of  Consumer U/s.2(7)  of C.P.Act, 2019. He submitted that the  complainant has deposited the  amounts  as  a member  account holder. Perused the  photo copies  of the certificates  issued by the opp.parties  co-operative society. It is  the fact that the  complainant  has  deposited  the amounts  as a member  account holder of the   society. However, it is  clear  that those  certificates  were   having  maturity amount  and the  maturity  date. So  it is  clear  from the  materials  on record  that the  complainant  has  invested  some   amounts  under those certificates to earn  profit  and the opp.parties  have  accepted the deposits  from the  complainant  in  course of   business of the  society.

6.         It is the  specific  plea   of the opp.party No.1 that the  complainant   is a member of   Sahara Co-operative Society Ltd , as  such he   is not a consumer as described  under C.P.Act, 2019. He has  relied  on a decision of Hon’ble National  Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision Petition No. 4871  of 2012  namely M/S. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vrs.  Managing Director, Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative  Bank .

            On the  other hand  the learned counsel for the complainant relied  on the following decisions :-

(i). Ram Kanwar Vrs. Sahara India Pariwar Pvt Ltd., of  Hon’ble State Commission,U.T,Chhandigarh , passed on 28.09.2021.

(ii). The  judgment passed on 21.07.2020 by  Hon’ble National Commission,New Delhi  in Revision Petition No. 4044  of 2014 in Branch Manager, Sahara India Vrs. Raj Kumari Devi .

(iii). The  judgment  passed  by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India  in Civil Appeal No. 64/2010 ,65/2010,66/2010,67/2010 and 68/2010 in the case of   Virendra Jain Vrs. Alaknanda Co-operative  Group Housing Society  Ltd. and  others  passed  on 23.04.2013.

(iv). The  judgment  passed on 11.12.2003   by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.  92 of 1998   in the  case of  The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society  Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs. & Ors.

7.         Perused the  judgments relied  on by both the parties. On perusal of the   photo copies of  certificates  filed by  the  complainant it is  clear  that the  complainant is  a member  of  the co-operative  society  of the opp.parties  business organization. It is  also clear  from the  evidence  on  record  that the  complainant has  deposited  different   amounts  and  certificates  were issued in  his  favour  by the  society of the opp.parties. Even though  he  is  a member of  the society of the opp.parties he  has invested   certain amounts to earn  the maturity  amount  on  his deposits. From the  judgment  pronounced  by the  different  Commissions and  the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on  by the complainant it is  crystal  clear  that the  complainant  is  a  consumer   U/s. 2(7)  of C.P.Act, 2019. So the  plea  of  the opp.parties   that the  present  complaint  petition  filed by the  complainant is   not   maintainable    is  not  acceptable  at all .So  the  present  complaint  filed by the  complainant is   maintainable  before  this Commission.

8.         Admittedly  the  complainant  has  deposited Rs. 13,000.00 & Rs. 12,000.00 under the  society of the opp.parties and  certificates  were issued in his  favour. On perusal of  those  certificates  it is  clear that the  maturity  amount  under the  afore said  certificates are Rs.  29,432.00.   & Rs. 27,168.00  respectively and  those certificates  are to be  matured  on 18.06.2019. The  contents  of the  complaint petition  is that the  complainant  has deposited the  amount  to earn  interest there on and the  opp.parties have  accepted  those certificates  in course  of  their  business to earn  profit . From the  complaint petition  and  from the  certificates  issued in favour of the  complainant  it is  clear that  that  he is   entitled   for   the matured amount. It  is  also  clear  that  inspite of repeated  approach  the opp.parties have not paid the matured amount to the  complainant. During  pendency of  this  case  the opp.parties    have not  taken  any  step   for  payment of the  amount  entitled by the  complainant  from the opp.parties. There is  deficiency  in service on the part  of the opp.parties’ society.  It further transpires  that the  society  has adopted  unfair trade practice by  describing  the  investors  as  member accounts holder.

7.         Hence ordered :-

: O R D E R :

The  case  be  and   same  is  allowed  in part on  contest  against opp.party No.1 and  exparte  against the  opp.party No.2. The opp.parties  are  jointly and severally liable   for   payment to the  complainant. The  opp.parties are directed to pay  Rs. 56,600.00   (Rupees  Fifty-Six Thousand Six Hundred)  only  along with  interest @ 12 % p.a  from the  date of maturity   until payment is  made. The above 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 of   receipt  of this  order, failing  which   they are liable  to pay penal interest @ 16% per annum,  on the  amount  to be paid to  complainant.