Orissa

Kandhamal

CC/11/2020

Dillip kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT-NEAR COLLECTORATE OFFICE,PHULBANI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/2020
( Date of Filing : 09 Nov 2020 )
 
1. Dillip kumar Nayak
S/o- Peda Nayak, At- Old LIC Colony, Po/ps- Phulbani
Kandhamal
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager,Sahara India
Sahara India Phulbani, At/po- Phulbani
Kandhamal
Odisha
2. Bisikesona Podha
GED Colony Phulbani, Po- Phulbani
Kandhamal
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MS. Ms.Sudhiralaxmi pattnaik PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Purna chandra Tripathy MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Jan 2021
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.

 

C.C. No. 11  OF 2020

 

 

Present:       Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik              -        President (I/c).

Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy              -        Member.

 

Dilip Kumar Nayak, age about 65 years

S/o: Peda Nayak, At: Old LIC Colony,

PO/PS: Phulbani,

Dist: Kandhamal                       ……………….       Complainant

 

-Versus-

 

1.       Branch Manager,

Sahara India Phulbani

At/PO: Phulbani

Dist: Kandhamal.

 

2.       Bisikesona Podha,

GED Colony Phulbani,

PO-Phulbani,

Dist: Kandhamal              ……………….       Opposite Parties.

 

For the Complainant:  Self.

For the Opp. Parties:  Advocate Sri R.K. Das and Associates.

Date of Order: 29th January 2021

The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had deposited the money under the scheme Q- Shop Plan-H in three different dates i.e. on dated 03/09/2012 Rs. 3,800/-, on dated 06/05/2012 Rs.9,500/- and on dated 06/06/2012 Rs 10,050/- through the OP No- 2 before the OP No – 1 and to that effect the OP No-1 issued Bonds /  Certificates bearing No. - 562003157714, 562016672125 & 562016673830 respectively.  The OP No- 2 explained the plan and assured for a handsome return on maturity of the deposited amount. Upon such assurance of the OP No- 2 the complainant became convinced and deposited an amount in total of Rs. 23,350/-. After 8 years the complainant approached the OP No- 1 for payment of the maturity amount and also submitted the relevant documents, inspite of that the OP No- 1 did not make any payment to the complainant for which the present complaint filed along with the certificates issued by the OP No- 1 against the deposit made by the complainant. Basing upon the complaint of the complainant notice issued to the OPs and were properly served upon the OPs. Thereafter the OP No.1 appeared and filed version through his counsel, but O.P No.2 did not appear, hence on dated 02/12/2020 declared set-exparte. The O.P No.1 in his written version denied the allegation and stated that the Complainant is a member of Sahara credit Cooperative society Ltd., so the complainant is not a consumer, similarly there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and the OP. Thus the OP No- 1 claimed that the complaint is not maintainable. In order to substantiate the case of the Complainant, he has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit and the deposit receipts.  We heard both the parties in length. We have gone through the case record and the relevant documents available in record. In our considered view that  the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs23,350/-   under  Q- Shop Plan-H in different dates and the OP No- 1 issued certificates as token of money receipts in favour of the complainant. After careful examination of the certificates it is come to our notice that the OP No- 1 issued the certificates not bearing the date of maturity and the maturity value, similarly the OP No- 1did not place any documents to proof that there was a contract with the complainant as the member of Sahara Co-operative Society Ltd., so we are not inclined to accept the version of the OP No- 1. From the forgoing discussion it is well established that there is unfair trade practice done by the OPs, as the OP No- 2 who act on behalf of the OP No- 1 tried to convince the complainant for deposit and assured for handsome return after 72 months but after expiry of the said periods neither the OP No- 1 return the maturity amount to the complainant nor respond the complainant.

For the aforesaid reasons it is undoubtedly the Complainant has sustained mental agony and harassment. It is crystal clear there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence order.

 

O R D E R

 

The complaint case is allowed on contest against the OPs. Both the Opp-parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 10,000/- for unfair trade practice .The O.P No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amount in double as maturity value, apart from that it is also directed the OP No- 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant within 45 days from the receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.

 

 

                   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Ms.Sudhiralaxmi pattnaik]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Purna chandra Tripathy]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.