DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.07.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

2.         The complainant is a senior citizen and at the verge of senior citizen for the savings deposited the amount as per motivation of the O.Ps to get lucrative returns of such deposits in future through their agent and advertisements. Accordingly, the complainant accepting the said offer aiming and basing on the future necessities like higher education for the children, their marriage and medical necessities at the old ages, deposited the amount for the period of 36 months under a Scheme: F36 Golden VM on the date of mentioned blow at the Authorized centre at the office of O.P.No.2 and the O.Ps are also declared certain conditions for entitled of the benefits and the detailed certificates are here under: 

When the complainant demanded to refund the matured amount on said deposit as mentioned in Table-1 on 31.12.2019, the O.P.No.2 has postponed and said to the complainant to come after 30 to 35 days and when the complainant approached on lapse of said period of 35 days, the O.P.No.2 denied giving the said matured amount instantly. Thereafter, till date, the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 for refund of the matured amount with delayed interest in regular interval in person and some time through her friends and relatives but O.P.No.2 paid deaf ear. Law is well settled that, when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment of the company or firm, it is essence of an offer by the company providing to interest persons a safe avenue for investment of their funds with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consisted of the fact that the company or firms is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and the depositor is clearly a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the matured amount of Rs.1,81,248/- with 9% interest per annum, Compensation of Rs.37,000/-, litigation Cost of Rs.43,600/-  in the best interest of justice.

           3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.  But the op.party no.1 was set exparte on 16.06.2023.

            4. The Opposite party no.1 filed its application on 19.06.2023 for dismissal/rejection/drop of the present complaint and not filed any steps to set-aside the exparte order.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

          5. On the date of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submitted the argument on the point of issues whereas the Opposite Parties not appeared on the date of hearing. The Commission heard and minutely perused the complaint, applications, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record.

For just and proper adjudication in the present case, the Commission has taken the application of the opposite party no.1 into consideration. The answering opposite party is formed and duly constituted under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The opposite party no.1 submitted that, in the interest of the public and taking into account the practical difficulties being faced by the group of societies, there are number of writ petitions pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the same purpose. And further the OP no.1 submitted through the present application that, they have approached Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha at Cuttack to stay and dismiss the cases pending at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions pertaining to the payment of maturity amounts to the depositors/investors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies (i.e., Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd, Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. and Humara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.). The O.P.No.1 to support of its contention no supportive documents have been filed in the present case. Again the O.P.No.1 submitted that they have relied upon the recent Order dated: March 29, 2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in IA No.:56308 of 2023 arising out of WP(C) No.:191 of 2022 in between Pinak Pani Mohanty vs. Union of India & Ors and in the matter of Union of India through Ministry of Cooperation wherein it was held that, ‘(i) Out of the total amount of Rs. 24,979.67 crores lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”, Rs.5000 crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which shall be paid to the genuine depositors in the most transparent manner and on proper identification and submitting proof of their deposits and proof of their claims and to be deposited in their respective Bank accounts directly”.

It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,18,000/- on dated 31.12.2016 and entitled to receive the Rs.1,81,248.00 on 31.12.2019 from the O.Ps. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.  Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”. The objection of O.Ps is that the complainant cannot ignore the arbitration clause to settle the dispute between the parties. The objection of O.Ps is that the complainant cannot ignore the arbitration clause to settle the dispute between the parties. But in the instant case, the O.Ps did not submit any supportive document regarding pending of case before any arbitrator or agreement paper before the Commission. The citations relied upon by the O.Ps are not applicable in the present case. The complainant can file the C.C. as per precedent. Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to a certain deficiency of service, there the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act as reported in the case of M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited v. Aftab Singh in R.P.No. 2629-2630 of 2018 in C.A. No. 23512-23513 of 2017 held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant that, in view of PIB.Govt.in/Press Release of Ministry of Cooperation dated 12^th December 2023, Release ID:1985498 PIB, Delhi (RK/AY/ASH/AKS/RR/PR/1599):- “Presently, payment only up to Rs.10,000/- is  being disbursed to each genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies against verified claim through Aadhar seeded Bank account.” In the instant case, the deposit and maturity amount of the complainant is more than Rs.10,000/-, hence he is not eligible to participate in said disbursement proceeding.

On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,81,248.00/- only along with 6% interest per annum to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 9% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 10.02.2023 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 23.07.2024.