Orissa

Cuttak

CC/99/2023

Sufal Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Singh & associates

18 Oct 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.99/2023

 

Sufal Mandal,

S/o: Late Jaydev Mandal,

Plot No.F/894,CDA,Sector-7,

P.S:Markat Nagar,Dist:Cuttack,

(Odisha),Pin-753014.                                                   ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

                        1.Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

Represented through its Managing Director,

Regd. Office at Mangal Jyoti,101,227/2,

AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,

West Bengal-700020.

 

                             2.         Branch Manager,

                                          Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

                                      At/PO:Choudhury Bazar,

                             P.S:Dargha Bazar,Cuttack,Odisha-753001.                                              ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     31.03.2023

               Date of Order:     18.10.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.K.Singh,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :        None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                

          The case of the complainant in short is that he being an account holder of O.Ps having A/c. No.13526906794 had invested money in a Fixed Deposit scheme of O.Ps namely “F64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE” on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.    The maturity period was for five years in the said scheme.     After the maturity date, the complainant in order to get his matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions  but the O.Ps did not release his maturity amount.  Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice on 1.12.2022 to the O.Ps for settlement of his claim but the O.Ps did not respond.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to settle his maturity amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 23.6.2022 till the amount is quantified as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, suffering, deficiency of service besides a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

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

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.12.05.2023.

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 ?

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

Point no.i.

The O.Ps are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant is a member of the O.Ps.  Hence, the question arose whether any dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps is maintainable before this Commission as there is provision in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainant against the O.Ps.  In this regard, there is a pertinent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of the present case reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, in the case of the Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Cooperative Societies Act, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as there is no provision in the said Co-operative Society Act ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. 

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.

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 the case of the complainant is maintainable before this Commission.

Point No.ii.

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 invested money by opening A/c bearing no. 13526906794 in one of the scheme of the O.Ps namely “F64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE” on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of Fixed Deposit Certificate as filed by him.

It is not disputed that the complainant had invested money of Rs.1,00,000/- with the O.Ps.  The maturity date of the said Fixed Deposit Certificate though clearly stipulated as 60 months, the O.Ps did not give the complainant the matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps many times to get his maturity amount but they did not give the matured amount to him even after sending the legal notice, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, there is a pertinent decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2001(3) CPR, 194(NC) in the case of Smt. Kalawati & others Vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft & Credit Society Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that non-refund of fixed deposit after maturity comes under the deficiency in service.  This decision is applicable in the present case.  The complainant had invested money with the O.Ps for earning interest.  The complainant would have earned interest if he would have invested his money in any other private sector or public sector undertaking.  But in the present case the O.Ps did not give the matured amount by which  the complainant was deprived of getting his principal amount as well as interest component.   Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in 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. 

Point no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the maturity amount in respect of his Fixed Deposit certificate as claimed by him.    Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant in the scheme of the O.Ps namely “F64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE” having A/c. No. 13526906794 alongwith interest thereon @  12% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 23.06.2022 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.­­­­­­­­­­­­15,000/- to the complainant towards his 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 18^th day of October,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.