Orissa

Cuttak

CC/214/2021

Dr Amarendra Chandra Misra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S Mishra & associates

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.214/2021

 

Amarendra  Chandra Misra,

S/O:Late Dr MahendraChanddra Misra,,

At/Durga Mandap Lane,Behind Sumitra Plaza,,

Near Govt. Bus Stand,Badambadi,

Cuttack, Pin Code-753012,

Odisha.                                                          ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.        Manager/Head,

        Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        Authorised Centre,Cuttack,

        B/515,Jagannath Complex,

        ProfesorPara,Bajrakabati Road,

        Cuttack-753012.

 

2.       Manager/Head,

       Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

       Regd. Office Mangal Jyoti,

       101,227/2,ACJ Bose Road,

       Kolkata,West Bengal-700020                                    ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     20.12.2021

Date of Order:    28.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                                       

          Case of the complainant in short is that he had invested money by purchasing one Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing no.605001514982 from the O.Psfor an amount of Rs.1,69,132/- in the scheme of the O.Ps namely “F 36 Golden VM”  on 25.5.2016 and which was to be matured on 25.5.2019.    On maturity, the complainant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,59,787/- from the O.Ps on 25.5.2019.  The further case of the complainant is that due to heart attack in January,2019,his physical activities were restricted and for which he had sent his son to the office of O.P no.1 at Cuttack on 27.5.2019 to receive the maturity amount.On the advice of the O.P no.1, the son of the complainant had deposited original certificate alognwith filled up form on 28.5.2019 for release of the maturity amount of the complainant.  But the O.Ps did not release the maturity amount. The complainant through his son met several times to the O.Ps for release of his maturity amount which yielded no result.  Hence, the complainant had sent a demand notice to the O.Ps on 30.4.2021 through his lawyer for release of the said amount but of no avail.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay his maturity amount of Rs.2,59,787/-alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as well as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2,10,000/-

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Psafter receiving the notice appeared but did not file their written version in due time, hence they were set exparte vide order dt.17.6.2022.

 

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they had practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Point No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

The averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by him.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing no.605001514982 from the O.Ps for an amount of Rs.1,69,132/- in the scheme of the O.Ps namely “F 36 Golden VM”  on 25.5.2016 and which was matured on 25.5.2019.  But the O.Ps did not pay the maturity amount.  The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of the Fixed Deposit certificate filed by him. The O.Pswere set expartebut they participated in the hearing of this case.  It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P.Act,2019.  It is also pleaded that the O.Ps are Cooperative Societies and any dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps is required to be adjudicated under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Society Act,2002.  It is urged that as in the said Act, there is an Arbitration clause for adjudicating the dispute between the parties, the present case before this Commission is not maintainable.  It is also pleaded that the O.Ps being the Cooperative Society, the present dispute is not maintainable before this Commission.  In this connection he relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission decided on 2.9.2013 in R.P.No.4871 of 2012 in the case of M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs. The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank and another decision of Hon’ble National Commission decided on 18.11.15 in Revision Petition no.3005 of 2008, so also other decisions of Hon’ble National Commission as well as other decisions. In short, it is stated by him that the present dispute is between the complainant and the Cooperative Society, the O.Ps and the complainant being one of the member of the said Society, the present dispute is to be decided under the said Cooperative Societies Act and not before this  Commission as Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint. 

At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019.  In Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

It is worth worthy to go through some decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this context.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, the Secretary,Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others, held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Cooperative Societies Act, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case.  In another decision Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022)6 SCC,496 in the case of Voda Phone, Idea Cellular Ltd. Vrs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal held by interpreting Sec-100 of C.P.Act,2019  that even if there is provision U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, the aggrieved person can approach the Consumer Commission as the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is not ousted U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.  The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Law of land and would prevail upon decisions of Hon’ble National Commission and other decisions as relied upon by the O.Ps.

  In the present case, the O.Ps could not point out the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Societies Act,2002,where the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission is ousted.

In view of the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act,2002, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the case of the complainant.  Hence, the contentions of O.Ps are not sustainable.

It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one Fixed Deposit Certificate from the O.Ps on payment of Rs1,69,132/- on 25.5.2016.  The maturity date of the said certificatewas25.5.2019, which is clearly mentioned in the said certificate.  As per the said certificate, after three years of purchasing the certificate, the complainant was entitled to get the maturity amount.  The O.Ps had not given him the matured amount as per their promise, after the maturity period although the complainant had fulfilled all the paraphernalias for release of the maturity amount in his favour.  He had approached many times to the O.Ps to get his maturity amount, so also had sent demand notice to them but the O.Ps did not give the matured amount of him.  The allegations made by the complainant having not being confronted are deemed to be true.  Hence, it is held that the O.Ps were deficient in their service as well as had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the complainant’s matured amount after its maturity period.  This issue is answered in favour of the complainant. 

Pointsno.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the matured amount of Rs.2,59,787/- towards the Fixed Deposit Certificate to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity i.e 25.5.2019 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant  towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                           Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                               President.