This complaint U/S 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party- The Branch Manager, Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, (Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited), ‘Sakti Sangha Club’ Compound, 1st Floor, Kadamtala, Jalpaiguri Town, P.S.: Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin Code: 735101 (West Bengal) who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).
The case of the compliment as per her complaint is as follows-
The complainant argued in her plaint that on 19/05/2016 she had deposited a sum of Rs. 69,266/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six) only as ‘Fix Deposit’ under ‘GOLDEN VM F36’ scheme/ policy for a period of 36 (Thirty Six) months with the O.P. and accordingly the O.P. issued to the complainant a ‘Deposit Certificate’ bearing Receipt No.- 665014944570, Hologram No.- 992423314996, Certificate No.- 605000139195 and the total maturity amount was Rs.1,06,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three) only on/ after its date of maturity, i.e. on 19/05/2019 but on/after the date/ period of maturity of the said ‘Fixed Deposit’ when the complainant visited the O.P. and produced her ‘Deposit Certificate’ before the Branch Manager, O.P., to settle her legitimate claims, the O.P. failed and neglected to settle the complainant’s legitimate claims. The complainant added in her plaint that on 08/07/2020 she sent a letter to the O.P. and requested to arrange payment of her said matured deposited amount together with up-to-date interest but despite having received the said letter the O.P. remained silent over the entire issue and ignore to settle complainant’s legitimate claim.
The complainant also argued in her plaint that on several times she verbally requested the Branch Manager, the O.P., to arrange payment of her said matured deposited amount together with up-to-date interest but the O.P. did not entertain her request.
The prayers of complainant are as follows: -
- To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay the complainant her legitimately receivable fixed deposit amount to the tune of Rs.1,06,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three) only together with up-to-date interest till the date of its recovery.
- To pass an order directing the O.P. for payment of overdue interest @12% per annum upon the aforesaid amount till the date of its recovery.
- To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay the complainant an amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as compensation against the constant tremendous mental stress and agony caused to her and her family members.
- To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay the complainant an amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only for the cost of litigation.
- To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay the complainant a total monetary claim amounting to the tune of [(Rs.1,06,393/-)+( Rs. 50,000/-)+( Rs. 50,000/-)= Rs. 2,06,393/- ((Rupees Two Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three) only)]
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
Sl. No. - 01: Photocopy of the ‘GOLDEN VM F36’ Certificate for Rs. 69,266/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six) only bearing Receipt No.- 665014944570, Hologram No.- 992423314996, Certificate No.- 605000139195 issued in favour of the complainant by the O.P..
Sl. No. - 2: Photocopy of the letter dated 08/07/2020 issued by the complainant (by hand) in favour of the Branch Manager of the O.P.
On behalf of the O.P., HUMARA INDIA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, Represented by the Branch Manager, Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, (Sahara Credit Co Operative Society Ltd.), ‘Sakti Sangha Club’ Compound, 1st Floor, Kadamtala, Jalpaiguri Town, P.S.- Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin Code: 735101 (West Bengal) who contested the case by filing W.V. and as per his W.V. the O.P.s categorically denied all the allegations made by the complainant and also referred some case laws in their respective W.V.
The O.P. in his Written Version has also argued that, in the present case the dispute if any, between the Complainant and the O.P.s is between the Member and Society, therefore in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Court, Hon'ble National Commission, Hon'ble State Commission and Hon'ble District Commission in this type of cases this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present Complaint and that's why the present Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and therefore this case is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.
Points for consideration
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
Decision with reason:-
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length.
The complainant resides in the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri and the O.P. is carrying his business in Jalpaiguri having his registered office at Jalpaiguri. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.
The complainant had a fixed deposit of Rs. 69,266/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Six) only, against the O.P. The grand total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the O.P. on/after the date of maturity period of was not received by the complainant from the O.P.
In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the Written Complainant has specifically corroborated the Complaint and has stated on which day she purchased the Fixed Deposit Certificate from the O.P, also narrated the date of Maturity. The Complainant has also stated on which day went to the O.P from demanding the maturity amount in respect of her Fixed Deposit Certificate. The Complainant has also stated in her evidence that she sent written letter to the O.P. for settlement of her claim but the O.P. paid no heed and make no payment till today.
At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.
Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s during argument submits that, this case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer as the Complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. He also argued that the O.P. is a society which was formed and duly constituted under provisions of Multi-state Co- operative Societies Act, 2002. He further argued that the Complainant was a member under the Society (O.P.) and their relation is not as a Consumer and service provider and for which if any disputes arises between the member and society it will be decided as per the provisions of Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Section 84), not as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s prayed for dismissal of this case.
Firstly we will consider the objection of the O.P. on the point as to whether the Complainant being a member of a society will fall within the definition Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 or not? in this regard we can refer a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it held that the disputes between Co-operative Society and its member regarding deficiency in Service can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act vide the case of The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRS (Appeal, Civil 92 of 1998) decided on 11.12.2003.
It was also decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender Jain Versus Alkananda Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 383 it was held that dispute raises by the members of the society can be decided by the Consumer Forum.
`In view of those decisions and other materials on record we are of the view that the plea taken by the O.P. stands rejected and this Commission has sufficient Jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint as a Consumer dispute and thereby this case is maintainable.
Ld. Advocate of the O.P. in the Written Version and during argument claimed that, this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case on the grounds that, in the contract between the Complainant and the O.P. there is arbitration clause which is contained in the terms and conditions of the contract. But the said point has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Aftab Singh - Versus- Emaar MGF Land Limited & anr being Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015 Vide Order dt. 13.07.2017 wherein it was held that, an arbitration clause in the Agreements cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum notwithstanding the Amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Against that Order Civil Appeals bearing in No. 23512-23513 of 2017 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the said Appeal was dismissed on 13.02.2018. Against that Order Review Petition) being No. 2629-2630 of 2018 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on 10.12.2018 that Review Application was also dismissed. In view of the above the objection raised by the O.P. regarding the jurisdiction point is also rejected.
In the case in hand there is no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was not provided with Investment Certificate. It is also not denied / disputed that, the Complainant did not deposit the Sum of money to the O.P. It is also admitted fact that, the O.P. on receiving the sum of money issued deposit certificates.
The complainant several times tried to get her legitimate claim but the O.P.s failed to settle her said legitimate claim of its Rs.1,06,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three) only.
So, as per the above discussion it is very much clear that there was a deficiency of service from the part of O.P. and this Commission has no doubt that there was a deficiency of services from the part of the O.P. in the instance case, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,06,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three) only in total, against the O.P, along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of the F.D. till the realization of the total amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and litigation cost and O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account.
That the Consumer Case No. 40/2022 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P. (Sahara Credit Co -Operative Society Limited).
Hence, it is therefore,
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 40/2022 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P., Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited.
The complainant do get an award of Rs.1,06,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three) only in total, against the O.P. along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of the F.D. till the realization of the total amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and litigation cost and O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account..
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.
