West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/40/2020

Mr. Supriya Kumar Choudhury, S/O- Swapan Choudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Franchise Guardian of Sahara Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd., Sahara India Parivar - Opp.Party(s)

29 Dec 2021

ORDER

           The brief facts of the complainant case are that the complainant is an investor of Sahara India Pariwar under Balurghat Biswaspara, of Dakshin Dinajpur. On 26.09.2012 he opened a recurring deposit policy under the Sahara scheme vide account No. 55454200445 on 26.09.2012. The term of the policy was 60 months and the mode of monthly premium of the policy was Rs. 1,300/- (One thousand three hundred) only. The date of maturity of the aforesaid recurring deposit was 27.09.2017.

            After the commencement of the aforesaid policy the complainant used to deposit his premium regularly which was duly acknowledge by the office in the pass book. After receiving the premium amount, the O.P. duly issued money receipt in favour of the complainant. The complainant has deposited 59 installments of Rs. 1,300/- per month i.e. Rs. 76,700 /- (Twenty-nine thousand) only to the O.P. under Sahara RD Scheme.

            After the maturity of the aforesaid RD Scheme the complainant went to the office of the O.P. and submitted his prayer for withdrawal of the maturity amount along with interest and other benefits but the O.P. refused to accept it then he sent his prayer. Thereafter on several occasions he went to the office of the O.P. for getting his maturity amount of his RD Policy but in every occasion the O.P. took a new plea and did not pay the maturity amount to the complainant. Finding no other alternatives, the complainant filed this instant case praying for a direction upon the O.P. to pay the principal amount of Rs. 76,700/- along with benefits and interest as per Sahara RD Scheme, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.

                 The O.P. appeared before this Commoission and contested the case by filing written version. The O.P. claimed the averments made in the complaint are false and said that the case is not maintainable. It has been further stated by the O.P that due to some litigation pending with SEBI, the Hon’ble Apex Court imposed embargo on the movable and the immovable properties of Sahara groups of companies and the O.P. craves leave of this commission and prays for dismissal of the instant case.

            In this case, the complainant has filed examination-in-chief by way of affidavit along with some documents by way of firisti.

1. RD policy (passbook), vide A/C No. 55454200445 issued by Sahara India Pariwar, in the name of Supriya Kumar Choudhury.
2. Letter of Shara Credit co-operative society Ltd.

Opposite party also filed examination-in-chief of O.P.W-1 by way of affidavit, no documents were filed.

 

                             Points for discussion

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per provision U/S 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of O.P. as alleged?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/ reliefs as prayed for?

 

                               Decision with Reasons

    Point 1:  

          This is an admitted fact by both the parties that the complainant has deposited total Rs. 76,700/- to the O.P. in Sahara RD Scheme, vide A/C No. 55454200445. So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the provision U/S 2 (1) (d) (ii) of C.P. Act, 1986.

 

Point No. 2 & 3: 

          These two points are taken up together as they are interlinked with each other. This is an admitted fact that the complainant has made investment in recurring deposit of Rs. 1,300/- per month for 59 installments i.e. total amount of Rs. 76,700/- paid to the O.P. in Sahara RD Scheme. After the maturity i.e. 27.09.2017 the complainant went to the office of the O.P. and submitted his prayer for withdrawal of his maturity amount along with interest and other benefits but the O.P. refused to accept it. Thereafter, he in several occasions went to the office of the O.P. for getting the maturity amount but the O.P. did not pay the aforesaid maturity amount till date.

      We have gone through the complaint, the written version, evidence of both the parties and documents filed on behalf of the complainant. We have also considered all the documents along with the submission canvassed on behalf of the parties.

       It is cleared that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 76,700/- with interest and other benefits as per terms and conditions of the Sahara RD Scheme. O.P., so he is not entitled to get any remedy in this case.

        But, after scrutiny of the terms and condition stated in the RD passbook we do not find any such condition laid down in the passbook of RD Scheme. Moreover, the complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount as per the terms and conditions of the Sahara RD Scheme which is described in the pass book.

      It is clear that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 76,700/- with interest and other benefits as per the terms and conditions of Sahara RD Scheme. So the complainant is a bona-fide consumer of the O.P.  From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the O.P. has violated the terms and conditions as laid down in Sahara RD Scheme. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service is not returning the sum invested by the complainant with accrued interest as agreed upon by and between the parties.

 

         All the points are thus decided in favour of the complainant against the O.P.

 

Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

That the consumer complaint case No. 40/2020 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the O.P.

          The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 76,700/- as principle amount/invested amount with interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 27.09.2017 till realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order in default complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.