Nonpayment of the maturity value of separate investment plans of the depositor herein the complainant has obliged her to lodge this complaint before this commission U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended up to date) alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the O.P as the O.P did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.
The fact of the Complaint Case in brief is that Complainant invested his hard earned money (Rs. 28,000+ 36,000 +36,000+ 1, 59,250 + 25,000 + 25,000 total Rs. 03, 09,250/-) in F 64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE VM scheme and SAHARA SPECIAL scheme in different dates of 2013 to 2018 respectably before HUMARA INDIA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED having its local office at Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Kadamtala, P.S-Kotwali, Dist-Jalpaguri, Pin 735101. On completion of maturity period O.P failed to repay the sum. But as no fruitful action taken place from the O.P, the instant case was filed on 06/06/2022 before this commission.
According to the condition of the Schemes, the complainant claimed that he is entitled to get total maturity value of Rs. 3, 09,250/- with up to date interest as per norms of the OP. The complainant has made claim as per policy, but no payment has been made by the OP.
The complainant in her averment had prayed for directing the O.Ps to make payment of Rs. 3, 09,250/- as maturity value with 12% interest from the date of cause of action. He also claim a compensation of rupees 50,000/-for harassment and mental agony and other reliefs. Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation cost.
On the other hand, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the Branch Manager (Sanjay Kumar Singh) Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Kadamtala, P.S-Kotwali, Dist-Jalpaguri, Pin 735101(OP No. 1) contested this case by filing a written version on the ground stated therein which is kept in the record. The main argument of the opposite party is the following
“No provision of consumer protection act, 2019 defines a member of cooperative society as Consumer. The act does not give right to the member of society to claim himself as a consumer of society”
In support of their divergence they sited various judgments of different district and state level consumer courts. Learned lawyer for the opposite party also verbally submitted that the OPs are not in a position to make payment to the complainant at this time.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, Thirumurugan ... vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & ... on 11 December, 2003 stated as under..
From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier,expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance of their orders.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in Virender Jain Versus Alaknanda Co op . in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 and connected matters (order Group Housing Society Ltd dated 13.04.2013) had also widened the scope of the CPA by holding that disputes between members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Fora. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand and as such it is held that the complaint is maintainable against the OPs under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that he had submitted proper demand notice but the O.P gave no reply. From the above discussion and as per original documents which are in the record, it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of Rs. 3, 09,250/- together with up-to-date interest as per norms of the O.P. It is the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P not to make payment of the maturity amount in time. The complainant is not responsible for the internal disturbance of the O.P.
Perused the record, on perusal of the prayer portion it appears that complainant has prayed for maturity amount Rs. 3,09,250/- along with interest of 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 3,09,250/- The allegation brought by the complainant remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Even the Branch Manager, Sanjay Kumar Singh admits the position. So, it appears that complainant is entitled to claim of his maturity amount mentioned in the seventh column of complaint petition.
Before we settle on the issue of interest and compensation, let us first put in place some of the observation of Apex Court/Hon’ble NCDRC hereunder:
- In ‘Alok Shankar Pandey—Vs—Union of India & Ors. [II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC)] it is observed—“It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.
2. In EMAAR MGF Land Ltd & Ors—Vs—Sudak Kumari Mahajan [2020 (1) CPR 78 (NC), the Hon’ble NCDRC speaks—“There is no justification for awarding separate compensation when interest is also in shape of compensation”.
3. DLF Homes Pavelkula Pvt Ltd—VS—D.S. Dhandu II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC)—“Grant of Interest @ 9% p.a. is justified.”
Hence, It is
O R D E R E D ,
The case CC/43/2022 is allowed on contest in part. O.P is directed to pay the maturity value Rs. 3, 09,250/- along with an interest of 9% p.a. from 14/10/2021 till realization of total amount provided the Complainant files original money receipts to O.P.
O.P. is to pay Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand only) to the complainant as litigation cost.
O.P. is to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) to the consumer legal aid account of this commission.
The order should be comply within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the order in execution according to provision of law.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
