1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainants is that the Complainant No.2 has deposited as sum of Rs.1, 15,000/- as detailed below in the name of his wife, Sukanti Mishra-Complainant No.1 in the Scheme, F2 Sahara.A.Select under Sahara Credit Cooperative Society run by the Ops.  The complainants have deposited the amount in the branch of OP.1 and have received necessary bonds to that effect.

Name of depositor  Account   No.       Amount   Opening dt. Maturity dt. Maturity amount.

1.Sukanti Mishra         41835600161  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

2.Sukanti Mishra         41835600162  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

3.Sukanti Mishra         41835600163  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

4.Sukanti Mishra         41835600164  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

5.Sukanti Mishra         41835600165  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

6.Sukanti Mishra         41835600166  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

7.Sukanti Mishra         41835600167  15000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017        17445/-

8.Sukanti Mishra         41835600168    5000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017          5815/-

9.Sukanti Mishra         41835600169    5000/-    07.10.2015 07.4.2017          5815/-

                                                    Rs.1, 15,000/-                                    Rs.1, 33,745/-

It is submitted that after due date of maturity, the complainants approached the OP.1 on 10.4.2017 at Kundra branch and demanded Rs.1, 33,745/- but the OP.1 asked the complainants to come after one month.  When the complainants approached on 10.5.2017, the OP.1 advised the complainant to come on 10.7.2017.  It is further submitted that the Ops did not pay the maturity amount even approach on 10.7.2017.  Thus the complainants alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops have filed this case, praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1, 33,745/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.75, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     All the Ops filed counter in joint through their A/R and took up preliminary objection that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case as the complainant has already entered into the arbitration agreement with the Ops at the time of opening the accounts that if any dispute arises between the Company and member of account holder, the matter shall be referred for arbitration and the award given by the sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties claiming under the proceeding of arbitration.  The Ops in this case admitted about opening of 9 accounts on 07.10.2015 under F2 Sahara.A.Select by the complainants and deposit of Rs.1, 15,000/- vide account No.41835600171 to 41835600178 but denied about approach of the complainants with necessary documents for verification of the same by the society and release of maturity amount under those accounts.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

3.                     The complainants have filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant have availed 9 bonds from the Ops under F2 Sahara.A.Select on 07.10.2015 to be matured on 07.4.2017 and in this manner they have deposited a sum of Rs.1, 15,000/- to get Rs.1, 33,745/- on maturity as per bond.  The complainants have filed copy of said bonds and their case is that they approached OP.1 to receive maturity amount from where they had obtained the bonds but on repeated approach, the OP.1 did not effect the payments on different pleas.

5.                     The Ops denying the approach of complainants raised a preliminary issue stating that in view of existence of arbitration clause under the scheme, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case.  Before going into merit of this case, we are inclined to decide the preliminary issue at the first instance.  It is a settled principle of law that, “Arbitration clause in the agreement does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Forum under the Act.  According to Sec.3 of the Act, the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.  In absence of any specific bar to other Forums and by virtue of Sec.3 of the C. P. Act, the Forum has got parallel jurisdiction to entertain this case and as such, this case is maintainable in this Forum.  Thus the preliminary issue goes in favour of the complainants.

6.                     While coming to the merit of this case, it is seen that the complainants have deposited Rs.1, 15,000/- under the scheme on 07.10.15 and the date of maturity of bonds was 07.4.2017.  After maturity of deposits, the Ops have no right to retain the money involved in it.  On approach of the bond holder, it is obligatory on the part of the Ops to release the amount forthwith when approached but in this case due to non release of maturity value the complainants have approached this Forum.  The allegations and contents of complaint petition are duly supported by affidavit.  The Ops have come up with untenable plea that the complainants have never approached them with necessary papers for release of their money.  If the Ops say so, soon after filing of this case, they should have effected payments and come with counter but they did not do so.  Hence non release of maturity amount in favour of the complainant after maturity date in our opinion certainly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.  Due to non receipt of maturity amount, the complainants must have suffered some mental agony but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.  Further in this case, the OP.1 has issued bonds and received the amount.  Hence the said branch is liable to pay the maturity value to the complainant No.1 with due interest as per scheme till date of payment.  The OP. No.5 being the head of the Sahara Group is also jointly liable for payment of maturity amount to the complainant.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 5 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.1, 33,745/- with as usual rate of interest under the scheme till actual payment and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant No.1 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  If the Ops failed to make payment within the given period, they are to pay Rs.100/- towards compensation per day to the complainant from the date of this order over and above the guaranteed interest under the scheme.

(to dict.)