Orissa

Cuttak

CC/133/2022

Sanjukta Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M K Dash & associates

24 Aug 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.133/2022

 

    Sanjukta Rath,

    W/o: Ashok Kumar Rath,

    At present residint At:Srikrishna Vihar,

    Lane-2,P.O/P.S:Bidanasi,

    Cuttack-14.                                                               ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.                Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,                                                                                                                                                   Represented through its Managing Director,

           Regd. Office,Sahara India Bhawan,1, Kapoorthala Complex,

 Aliganj, Lucknow,226024,Uttar Pradesh.

2.        Manager,Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

           Regional Office:At:Bharat Scout & Guides Building,

           Plot No.IX/C-8,Unit-3,Bhubaneswar-751022.

3.       Branch Manager,

                       Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

                       At:Raghunath Mandir Road,Odagaon,

                      PO/PS:Odagaon,Dist:Nayagarh.                               ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     05.07.2022

Date of Order:    24.08.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. M.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.             :                      None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                    

  The case of the complainant in short is that she had invested money in the “Sahara E.Shine” scheme of the O.Ps in two nos. of policies on payment of Rs.10,000/- each on 15.9.2011 for 96 months.  The policies bearing A/c. No.25373702438 & 25373702446 were purchased by the complainant by depositing Rs.10,000/- each which were to be matured on 15.9.2019.  It is stated by the complainant that she had invested total amount of Rs.20,000/- with the O.Ps and as per the scheme, the complainant is entitled to get the total maturity value of Rs. 45,280/- from the O.Ps.  The complainant has filed the xerox copy of bonds/policies by annexing it as Annexure-1 series in her complaint petition, wherein the name of the scheme, deposited amount as well as the maturity amount has been mentioned.  It is stated by the complainant that after the maturity date, the complainant in order to get her matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions.  The complainant had also sent the Registered letters and reminders to the O.Ps to release her maturity amount.  But the O.Ps did not release her maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay her maturity amount as per the scheme, which is  calculated as  Rs. 45,280/- alongwith future interest @ 10% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove her case as well as evidence on affidavit in support of her case.

2.       Though the O.Ps have appeared but did not file the written version.    Hence, they were set exparte vide order dated 2.2.2023. 

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  and if they had practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

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 the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of his 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.  He also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021 SC,70 in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. Vrs. Anil Patni and others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that RERA Act does not debar for adjudication of dispute by the Consumer Commission for redressal of grievances of the complainant relating to the Real Estate matter.  Hence the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to the Real Estate matter.  The learned counsel of the complainant also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022)6 SCC,496 in the case of Voda Phone, Idea Cellular Ltd. Vrs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. 

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 her complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by her.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased two nos. of policies in one of the schemes, namely “Sahara E.Shine” of the O.Ps. In total, the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/-( each certificate of Rs.10,000/-) to the O.Ps which has been mentioned in the bonds/policies issued by the O.Ps vide Annexure-1 series.

It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased two nos. of bonds/policies from the O.Ps in one of the schemes of the O.Ps namely “Sahara E.Shine”.    The maturity date of the said policies are clearly mentioned in the policy issued by the O.Ps; which were due on the dates as mentioned against each of the policy. The O.Ps had not given the complainant her matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps many times to get her maturity amount but the O.Ps did not give the matured amount, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a 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 she would have invested her 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 her 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 matured amount of the complainant 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 get the maturity amount of her two nos. of policies issued by the O.Ps.  In view of the discussions made above, the complainant is entitled to get the total maturity amount of Rs.45,280/- besides other reliefs.    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 complainant the total matured amount of Rs. 45,280/- in respect of two nos. of policies bearing no. 25373702438 & 25373702446 purchased by her from the O.Ps in one of the scheme of O.Ps namely “Sahara E.Shine” alongwith interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 15.9.2019 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- 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 24^th day of August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                               Member.

 

 

                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                               President.