This complaint U/S 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P. 1)- The Branch Manager, HUMARA INDIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, and The Branch Manager (O.P. 2) SAHARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, Both O.P. Nos. (1) and (2), are having their Branch Office under the same office at ‘Sakti Sangha Club’ Compound, 1st Floor, Kadamtala, Jalpaiguri Town, P.S- Kotwali, P.O and District- Jalpaiguri, Pin- 735101 (West Bengal) who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).
The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-
The complainant stated in her plaint that on the opposite party No. 1 is a Co-Operative Society Limited having its Registered Office at ‘Mangal Jyoti’, 101, 227/2 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700020, [Regd No.-MSCS/CR/594/2012], and, the opposite party No. 2 is also a reputed Co-Operative Society Limited having its Registered Office at ‘Sahara India Bhawan’, 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024,
[Regd No.MSCS/CR/333/2010], and, both the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are having its same branch Office under the same roof and place of office located at ‘Sakti Sangha Club’ Compound, 1st Floor, Kadamtala, Jalpaiguri Town, P.S - Kotwali, P.O and District- Jalpaiguri, Pin- 735101 (West Bengal), and, both are also situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this learned District Commission.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 15.09.2016 under “GOLDEN KF F 30” scheme/policy had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,67,515/- (Rupees One Lac, Sixty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifteen) only, as ‘Fix Deposit’ for a period of 30 (Thirty) months with the O.P No. 1 and accordingly the O.P. No. 1 had issued unto the complainant/petitioner, a ‘Deposit Certificate’ No. 665018414855 dated 15.09.2019 and on Certificate bearing Certificate No. 555000865006, Receipt No. 665018414855, Hologram No. 992487306863 for the said amount and the total Maturity Amount receivable by receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No.- 1 on/after its date of maturity period of 30 (Thirty) months, i.e. on 15.03.2019 , being Rs. 2,39,948/- ( Rupees Two Lacs, Thirty-Nine Thousand, Nine hundred and Forty Eight) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 22.12.2016 the complainant / petitioner, had also fixed-deposited another sum amount to the tune of Rs. 17,584/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty-Four) only, under “GOLDEN A DOUBL F 64” scheme/policy for a period of 64 (sixty-Four) months, with the opposite party No.- 1 and accordingly, the opposite party No.- 1 had issued unto the complainant / petitioner, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 465003177780, Receipt No. 665018412237, Hologram No. 992451031004 for Rs. 17,584/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty-Four) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 on/after its date of maturity period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months, i.e., on 22.04.2022, being Rs. 35,168/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Eight) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 22.12.2016 the complainant / petitioner herself, had also fixed-deposited another sum amount to the tune of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand) only, under “GOLDEN A DOUBLE F64” scheme/policy for a period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months, with opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, the O.P. No. 1 had issued unto the complainant / petitioner, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 465003177781, Receipt No. 66518412238, Hologram No. 992451031005 for Rs. 17000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 on/after its date of maturity period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months, i.e., on 22.04.2022, being Rs. 34,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 22.12.2016 the complainant / petitioner herself, had also fixed-deposited another sum amount to the tune of Rs.17,584/- (Rupees Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty-Four) only under “GOLDEN A DOUBLE F64” scheme/policy for a period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months, with opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, the O.P. No. 1 and accordingly had issued unto the complainant / petitioner, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 465003177782, Receipt No. 665018412239, Hologram No. 992451031006 for Rs. 17,584/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty-Four) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 on/after its date of maturity period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months i.e., on 22.04.2022, being Rs. 35,168/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Eight) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 22.12.2016 the complainant / petitioner herself, had also fixed-deposited another sum amount to the tune of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand) only, under “GOLDEN A DOUBLE F64” scheme/policy for a period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months, with opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, the O.P. No. 1 and accordingly had issued unto the complainant / petitioner, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 465003177783, Receipt No. 665018412240, Hologram No. 992451031007 for Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 on/after its date of maturity period of 64 (Sixty-Four) months i.e., on 22.04.2022, being Rs. 34,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that the total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 for 5 (Five) Fixed Deposit Amounts on / after its date of maturity period stood to a Grand Total of [Rs. 2,39,948/- + Rs. 35,168/- + Rs. 34,000/- +Rs. 35,168/- + Rs. 34,000/- ] = Rs 3,78,284/- (Rupees Three Lakh, Seventy-eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty-Four) only. With interest accrued thereon.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 07.12.2018, the complainant / petitioner herself, had also fixed-deposited another sum amount to the tune of Rs. 19,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand and Eight Hundred) only, under “SAHARA SPECIAL” scheme/policy for a period of 18 (Eighteen) months, with the O.P. No. 2, and accordingly, the O.P. No. 2 had issued unto the complainant, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 787003461198,
account No. 20027201884, Hologram No. 992782791784 for Rs. 19,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand and Eight Hundred) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 2 on/after its date of maturity period of 18 (Eighteen) months i.e., on 07.06.2020, being Rs. 23,186/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty Six) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 07.12.2018, the complainant hereof, had also fixed-deposited another sum amounting to the tune of Rs. 19,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand and Eight Hundred) only under “SAHARA SPECIAL” scheme/policy for a period of 18 (Eighteen) months, with the O.P. No. 2, and accordingly, the O.P. No. 2 had issued unto the complainant, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 787003461199, Account No. 20027201885, Hologram No. 992782791785 for Rs. 19,800/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand and eight Hundred) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 2 on/after its date of maturity period of 18 (Eighteen) months, i.e., on 07.06.2020, being Rs. 23,186/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty Six) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 07.12.2018, the complainant hereof, had also fixed-deposited another sum amounting to the tune of Rs. 7,800/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Eight Hundred) only, under “SAHARA SPECIAL” scheme/policy for a period of 18 (Eighteen) months, with the O.P. No. 2, and accordingly, the O.P. No. 2 had issued unto the complainant, one Certificate bearing Certificate No. 787003461200, Account No. 20027201886, Hologram NO. 992782791786 for Rs.7,800/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Eight Hundred) only. The total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the opposite party No. 2 on/after its date of maturity period of 18 (Eighteen) months, i.e., on 07.06.2020, being Rs. 9,134/- (Rupees Nine Thousand, One Hundred and thirty-Four) only.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that the total Maturity Amount of 3 (Three) Fixed Deposits receivable by the complainant from the O.P. No. 2 is [Rs. 23,186/- + Rs. 23,186/- + Rs. 9,134/-] = Rs. 55,506/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six) only with interest @ 11% accrued thereon.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on numerous occasions, verbally requested the Branch Manager of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 to arrange payment of the matured deposited amount together with up-to-date interest, but, the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, instead of re-considering the genuine claim of the complainant, rather turned a deaf ear to all the requested of the complainant and remained completely dumb over the matter-in-issue.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that the total legitimate claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,78,284/- (Rupees Three Lac, Seventy-Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty- four) only, with interest accrued thereon, receivable from the O.P No. 1, along with her legitimately receivable to the tune of Rs. 55,506/- (Rs. Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six ) only, with interest @ 11% accrued thereon receivable from the O.P. No. 2, together with up-to-date interest till date, was most illegally, arbitrarily and unlawfully withheld by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 without any justifiable cause or reasons.
- The prays of complainant are as follows: -
- To pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the complainant her legitimately receivable fixed deposit amount to the tune of [Rs. 2,39,948/- + Rs. 35,168/- + Rs. 34,000/- +Rs. 35,168/- + Rs. 34,000/- ] = Rs. 3,78,284/- (Rupees Three Lac, Seventy-eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty-Four) only, together with up-to-date interest till the date of its recovery.
- To pass an order directing the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay to the complainant her legitimately receivable fixed deposit amount to the tune of [Rs. 23,186/- + Rs. 23,186/- + Rs. 9,134/-] = Rs. 55,506/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six) only with interest @ 11% accrued thereon till the date of its recovery.
- To pass an order directing the Opposite Party No. 1and 2 for payment of overdue interest @ 11% per annum upon the aforesaid amount till the date of its recovery.
- To pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the complainant an amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, as compensation against the constant tremendous mental stares and agony caused to her and her family members.
- To pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the complainant an amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, for the cost of litigation, and,
- To pass an Order directing the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay the complainant, total monetary claim amounting to the tune of [(Rs. 3,78,284/-) +(Rs. 55,506/- ) + (Rs. 50,000/-) +(Rs. 50,000/-) = Rs. 5,33,790/-] (Rupees Five Lac, Thirty- Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety) only.
- To pass an Order or Orders as your Honour may deem fit, just and proper for greater ends of justice.
The Ld. Advocate of the complainant referred decision of the Hon’ble MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTRES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHUPAL reported in II (2022) CPJ 197 (M.P.) and he also referred another decision reported in I(2023) CPJ 80 (Kar), KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALUR to establish his claim.
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
Sl. No.- 01: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 55500865006, ‘Deposit Certificate’ No. 665018414855 dated 15.09.2019 issued by the O.P. No.1 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 2: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 465003177780 issued by the O.P. No. 1 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 3: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 465003177781 issued by the O.P. No. 1 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 4: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 465003177782 issued by the O.P. No. 1 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 5: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 465003177783 issued by the O.P. No. 1 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 6: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 787003461198 issued by the O.P. No. 2 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 7: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 787003461199 issued by the O.P. No. 2 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 8: Photocopy of Certificate bearing Certificate No.- 787003461200 issued by the O.P. No. 2 in favour of the complainant.
Sl. No.- 9: Original Demand Draft bearing No. 608077 dated 15.06.2022.
Sl. No.- 10: Photocopy of letter of appointment issued from the Legal Aid Office, D.C.D.R.C, Jalpaiguri.
On behalf of the O.P.s, Humara India Credit CO Operative Society Ltd, Represented by the Branch Manager, Humara India Credit CO Operative Society Ltd., Kadamtala Complex (1st Floor), Kadamtal, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, Pin Code- 735101 and Sahara Credit Co Operative Society Ltd., Represented by the Branch Manager, Kadamtala Complex (1st Floor), Kadamtal, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, Pin Code- 735101 who contested the case by filing W.V. and as per their 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.s in their Written Version has also stated 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. 3,78,284/- ( Rupees Three Lac, Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Four) only in total, against the O.P No. 1 and Rs. 55,506/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six) only in total with the O.P No. 2 The grand total Maturity Amount receivable by the complainant from the O.P.s on/after the date of maturity period of was not received by the complainant from the O.P No. 1 and O.P No. 2.
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 Certificates from the O.P,s 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 Certificates. The Complainant has also stated in her evidence that she sent written letter to the O.P.s for settlement of her claim but the O.P.s 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.s 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 Certificates. 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 from the O.P.s but the O.P.s failed to settle her said legitimate claim of its Rs. 3,78,284/- ( Rupees Three Lac, Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Four) only in total, against the O.P No. 1 and Rs. 55,506/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six) only in total with the O.P No. 2.
So, as per the above discussion it is very much clear that there was a deficiency of service from the part of O.P. No. 1 and O.P No. 2 and this Commission has no doubt that there was a deficiency of services from the part of the O.P. No. 1 and O.P No. 2 in the instance case, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,78,284/- ( Rupees Three Lac, Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Four) only in total, against the O.P No. 1 along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of these F.D.s and Rs. 55,506/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six) only against the O.P No. 2 along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of these F.D.s 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. No-1 and O.P. No.-2 are also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account in equal share.
That the Consumer Case No. 52/22 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P. No.-1 (Humara India Credit CO Operative Society Ltd) and O.P. No.-2 (Sahara Credit Co -Operative Society Limited).
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 52/22 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P. No.-1 (Humara India Credit CO Operative Society Ltd) and O.P. No.-2 (Sahara Credit Co -Operative Society Limited).
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 3,78,284/- ( Rupees Three Lac, Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Four) only in total, against the O.P No. 1 along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of those F.D.s and Rs. 55,506/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Six) only against the O.P No. 2 along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of those F.D.s 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. No-1 and O.P. No.-2 are also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account in equal share.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost. Let a copy of this order be given to parties free of cost.
