Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/7/2022

SRIMOTI BABITA SAHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAHARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SRI JOGEN BORDOLOI

10 Jul 2024

ORDER

Date of Argument- 26.05.2023

                                                                                                                               16.10.2023

                                                                                            Date of Judgement- 10.07.2024

 

            The complainant instituted this complaint case u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties claiming to direct the O.Ps. to release the maturity payment of all the certificates with interest from the date of maturity till date and a compensation of ₹ 60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only for harassment and mental agony and all the cost of the suit.

 

                               JUDGEMENT

 

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a business woman and a permanent resident of Dibrugarh within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

            The opposite party is a Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. and one of the largest Multi State Credit Cooperative solely registered with Central Registrar of Cooperative Society under Ministry of Agriculture in the year 2010. The complainant had been maintaining a term deposit A/c under the scheme “Golden VM” with the O.Ps. at its Tinsukia authorized centre, Tinsukia, the O.P. No.3. The scheme maintained by the complainant is shown in the table below :

Sl. No.	Date of opening	Receipt No.	Membership No.	Account No.	Amount of term deposit (Rs.)	Date of maturity	Maturity value (Rs.)	Additional Associated Certificate Maturity Value (Rs.)
1	15/03/2015	80741154838	11071801641	110772205269	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
2	15/03/2015	80741154839	11071801641	110772205270	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
3	15/03/2015	80741154840	11071801641	110772205271	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
4	15/03/2015	80741154841	11071801641	110772205272	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
TOTAL (Rs.)					1,60,000/-		2,17,312/-	2,27,348/-

 

Total maturity value stands at ₹ 4,44,660/- (Rupees four lakh, forty four thousand, six hundred and sixty)only.

On maturity of the above noted term deposit, the complainant demanded to release the maturity payment; but the respondent No.3 failed to release the said payment till date with a pretext “at present no fund is available to release the same”. Subsequently, the complainant contacted over phone and physically attended but the respondent No.3 failed to comply with the terms and conditions laid down in the certificate of term deposit.

As a result of non-payment of the maturity payments by respondent No.3 the complainant is facing a lot of unforeseen difficulties. The attitude and action of the respondent is a total violation of existing policy and regulation of this society and it is a case of blazing instance of dereliction of duties, service, negligence and violative of existing norms and commitments of the respondent towards the valued customer.

The cause of action arose on 15.03.2018 when the complainant opened the term deposit and on the date of maturity, i.e. on 15.03.2021 and subsequently on the days when the complainant physically visited the place of the respondent No.3.

The complainant has filed this complaint to direct the respondent –

1. To release the maturity payment of all the certificates.
2. To pay interest from the date of maturity, i.e. from 15.03.2021 till date.
3. To pay an amount of ₹ 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand)only for the damages for harassment, physical injury and mental agony.
4. To pay all costs of this suit.
5. Any other reliefs to which the complainant is entitled to.

After registering the case notices were issued to all the opposite parties and the opposite parties contested the case by filing their W/S.

            In their W/S all the opposite parties have jointly submitted that the opposite party is a Society formed and duly constituted under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 governed by that Act alone. The Act of 2002 is a complete code in itself and inter alia provides for rights, obligations and privileges and duties of the Co-operative Societies and their members. The Act also provides for settlement of deposits amongst the Societies and their members.

            The opposite parties did not provide services to the members rather the members jointly constituted the Society and they are responsible to protect the interest of the Society. The members of the Society contributed their shares for the benefit of the Object, the Society. The complainant never hired any service of the Society, so there was no occasion for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Society/opposite party.

            The term “Member” has been defined by the Act of 2002 in section 3(n ) “Members means a person joining in the application for the registration of a Multi-State Co-operative Society and includes a person admitted to membership for such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the byelaws”. The complainant had been admitted to membership of the Society as per above provisions of the Act of 2002 and therefore the provisions of that Act as well as rules and byelaws of the Society are binding upon the complainant. The opposite parties further submitted that after registration as a Multi-State Co-operative Society, the O.P. No. 1 launched a contributory scheme and admitted members in terms of the Act of 2002, the rules framed thereunder and the byelaws of the Society. The contributory scheme runs among the members for their benefit. The members are bound to desist from any act of omission which may cause harm or damage to the Society. The complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the Society had become a member and he showed his willingness to take part in the schemes of the society as per his desire and will. The relation between the complainant and the Society is of a member and society not of a consumer and service provider.

            The complainant being a member of the society has to follow the guidelines of the society. His rights, interests and obligations are governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.

These opposite parties in their W/S have explained Sec. 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and have annexed as many as five judgements in support of their W/S (Annexure 1 to 5). It is also submitted by the O.P.s in their W/S that in the present case the dispute, if any, between the complainant and the opposite party is between member and society. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above cases, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Thus the present complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission and is liable to be dismissed with cost. Moreover, if the complainant, who is a member of the society, has any grievance or dispute with the society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before the arbitrator as per arbitration clause.

            The opposite party has submitted that Section 84 of the Act of 2002 provides that if any dispute touching upon the constitution, management of business of a society which arises between the member and society, the same shall be referred to arbitration. The mandatory nature of this provision is evidenced by the fact that Section 84 starts with a non-obstante clause, which explicitly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration if the conditions specified therein are met. There exist a valid arbitration agreement between Society and member, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            The opposite parties in their W/S also submitted that Section 84 of Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 has overriding effect over general provisions contained in any other law or statue. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection act, 2019, the Consumer Commissions has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes between members and society. Thus this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; as such complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

           
            In this case the complainant Smti. Babita Sahu submitted her evidence in affidavit along with 10 Nos. of document as exhibits.

            The complainant, PW-1, in her evidence submitted that she is a business woman by profession and a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Commission. On the other hand the opposite parties are Credit Cooperative Society Limited and one of the largest Multi-State Cooperative Society solely registered with Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Ministry of Agriculture in the year 2010. The Society has wide area of its operations spread over 22 states and union territories and the Society is working through more than 4700 plus authorized centers with more than 125 Administrative Officers. O.P. No.3, namely the Branch Manager, who is the authorized sector of Tinsukia of O.P. No.1 and 2 through whom the O.P. No.1 & 2 achieved the objective to facilitate for promotion of saving habits amongst its members, of arranging specialized training for its employees, members and cooperative educators, of promoting social and economic betterment of members through self-help and mutual aid in accordance with cooperative principles specified in the first schedule of the Act.

The complainant had been maintaining a term deposit A/c under the scheme “Golden VM” with the O.Ps. at its Tinsukia authorized centre, Tinsukia, the O.P. No.3. The scheme maintained by the complainant is shown in the table below :

Sl. No.	Date of opening	Receipt No.	Membership No.	Account No.	Amount of term deposit (Rs.)	Date of maturity	Maturity value (Rs.)	Additional Associated Certificate Maturity Value (Rs.)
1	15/03/2015	80741154838	11071801641	110772205269	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
2	15/03/2015	80741154839	11071801641	110772205270	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
3	15/03/2015	80741154840	11071801641	110772205271	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
4	15/03/2015	80741154841	11071801641	110772205272	40,000/-	15/03/2021	54,328/-	56,837/-
TOTAL (Rs.)					1,60,000/-		2,17,312/-	2,27,348/-

 

Total maturity value stands at ₹ 4,44,660/- (Rupees four lakh, forty four thousand, six hundred and sixty)only. (Ext. 1 to 8 are the term deposit certificates).

On maturity of the above noted term deposit, the complainant demanded to release the maturity payment; but the respondent No.3 failed to release the said payment till date with a pretext “at present no fund is available to release the same”. Subsequently, the complainant contacted over phone and physically attended but the respondent No.3 failed to comply with the terms and conditions laid down in the certificate of term deposit.

As a result of non-payment of the maturity payments by respondent No.3 the complainant is facing a lot of unforeseen difficulties. The attitude and action of the respondent is a total violation of existing policy and regulation of this society and it is a case of blazing instance of dereliction of duties, service, and negligence and violative of existing norms and commitments of the respondent towards the valued customer.

The cause of action arose on 15.03.2018 when the complainant opened the term deposit and on the date of maturity, i.e. on 15.03.2021 and subsequently on the days when the complainant physically visited the place of the respondent No.3.

The complainant has further submitted that she was a nominal member of that cooperative society formed by the O.P., but not a regular member of the said society.

               As per Section 26 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, a multi-state cooperative society may, if provided in its bye-laws, admit a person as nominal or associate member: provided that no such nominal or associate member shall be entitled to subscribe the shares of such society or have any interest in the management thereof including right to vote, elect as a director of the board to participate in the general body meetings.

            Further, in the propose bye-laws of O.P. No.1, clause 20 also states that the society at its discretion may admit a person on payment of a non-refundable fee of ₹25/- as a nominal member shall not be entitled to subscribe to the shares of the society or have any interest in the management thereof including right to vote, be elected as director of the board or participate in the general body meetings. (Ext. No. 9 & 10 are the respective provisions of the respective Act and bye-laws of the O.P. No.1).

            The complainant, PW-1 has claimed the following reliefs from the O.P.-

1. To pay the maturity values as fixed in the certificates of term deposit, and
2. To pay the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the maturity values from the date of maturity till the date of pendency of maturity payment, and
3. To pay a compensation amount of ₹ 60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand )only for mental agony and hardship faced during physical visit to the place of O.P. No.3 and
4. To pay all costs of this suits, and
5. To pay any other reliefs available to her from the O.P.

In this case the O.P. submitted his/their evidence in affidavit through one Shri Manoj Kumar as D.W. In his evidence this D.W. has submitted that the answering O.P. is a Society, which is formed and duly constituted under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Being a multistate Co-operative Society, activities of the O.P. is governed by the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 along. The Act of 2002 is a complete code in itself and inter-alia provides for rights obligations, privileges, and duties of the Co-operative Societies and their members. The Act, inter-alia also provides for settlement of disputes amongst the societies and their members.

This D.W. further submitted that the O.P. do not provide service to the members rather, the members jointly constitute a society and they are responsible to protect the interest of the society. The members of society contributed their shares for the benefit of the objects of society. The complainant never hired any service of the society, so there was no occasion for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice e on the part of the society/opposite party.

This D.W. also submitted that it may be worthwhile to note that the term ‘Member’ has been defined by the Act of 2002 under section – 3(n) “Member” means a person joining in the application for the registration of multi-state cooperative society and includes a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the byelaws.”

The complainant had been admitted to membership of the society as per the above provisions of the Act, 2002, therefore the provisions of the Act, 2002 as well as rules and byelaws of the society are binding upon the complainant. It is also submitted that after registration as a multi-state cooperative society, the O.P. had launched a contributory scheme and admitted members in terms of the Act of 2002, the rules framed thereunder and the byelaws of the Society. The contributory scheme runs among the members for their benefit. The members are bound to desist from any act of omission which may cause harm or damage to the Society. The complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the Society had become a member and he showed his willingness to take part in the schemes of the society as per his desire and will. The relation between the complainant and the Society is of a member and society not of a consumer and service provider.

            Being a member the complainant has to follow the guidelines of the society. His rights, interest, and obligations are governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 which is a complete code in itself and inter-alia provides for dispute redressal mechanism between the society and its members.

            The D.W. has explained section 84 of Multi-State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 specifically provide mechanism for redressal of the disputes that may arise between the society and its members as below :

Chapter IX

Settlement of Disputes

Section-84

84. Reference of disputes :-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a Multi-State Co-operative Society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-State Co-operative Society arises –

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or

(b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Multi-State Co-operative Society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the Multi-State Co-operative Society or liquidator, past or present , or

(c) between the Multi-State Co-operative Society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the Multi-State Co-operative Society, or

(d) between the Multi-State Co-operative Society and any other Multi-State Co-operative Society, between a  Multi-State Co-operative Society and liquidator of another Multi-State Co-operative Society or between the liquidator of one Multi-State Co-operative Society and the liquidator of another Multi-State Co-operative Society, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, namely :-

(a) a claim by the Multi-State Co-operative Society for any debt or demand due to it from a   member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;

(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the Multi-State Co-operative Society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;

(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a Multi-State Co-operative Society.

(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

(4) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar.

(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).

            The D.W. has submitted that the complainant is not the consumer of the O.P. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the O.P. Therefore, for any dispute between society and members consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission.

            The D.W. has mentioned that Section 84 of the Act of 2002 provides that if any dispute touching upon the constitution, management or business of a society which arises between the members and society, the same shall be referred to arbitration. The mandatory nature of this provision is evidenced by the fact that Section 84 starts with a non-obstante clause, which explicitly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration if the conditions specified therein are met. There exist a valid and arbitration agreement between society and member, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            Section 84 of Multi-State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 has overriding effect over general provisions contained in any other law or statue. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Commissions has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes between members and society. Thus, this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; as such complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

            In this case both the parties have submitted their written arguments at length. The complainant in her written argument along with reiterating the evidence has submitted that the complainant was a nominal member of the cooperative society formed by the opposite party but not a regular member of the said society. As per Section 26 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, a Multi-State Co-operative Society may, if provided in its byelaws, admit a person as nominal or associate member provided that no such nominal or associate member shall be entitled to subscribe the shares of such society or have any interest in the management thereof including right to vote, elect as director or participate in the General Body Meeting. Further, as per byelaws of O.P. No.1, clause 20 also states that the society at its discretion may admit a person on payment of a non-refundable fee of ₹25/- as nominal member.

            The complainant in her argument has submitted that the opposite parties have failed to furnish/exhibit their own byelaw of the society to substantiate their ground/claim as mentioned in their written statement and evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties dated 25.01.2023. So far as the complainant is not a consumer is concerned as alleged by the opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, intended to provide a remedy for exploitation and to protect their right for wellbeing of the people. The opposite parties had not issued their share certificate in favour of the complainant and hence they are unable to furnish/exhibit the share certificate number and date of issue in their W/S and in evidence also. Now it is clear that the complainant is a nominal share holder as per provision of clause 20 of the byelaw of the opposite parties and hence the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act and the Commission is at liberty to proceed with the said Act and hence entitled to the claim as claimed by herself.

                        The O.P., in this case, M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society has submitted their argument in length. The O.P. has submitted that the present matter is with regard to the purported payment of maturity amount to the depositor/investor herein allegedly invested/deposited in the society under the name and style of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society.

                        In the interest of the public and taking into account the practical difficulties being faced by the group of societies the Union of India/Central Government, Ministry of Cooperation had moved an I.A. bearing No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition(Civil) No.191 of 2022 titled as Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs Union of India and others before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to pronounce the judgement on 29.03.2023 in which certain directions were given for redressal of grievances of the depositors of Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies of which the complainant Society was also a party. Annexure-A-2 enclosed with their written argument is that order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

                        The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 29.03.2023 directed SEBI to deposit the amount of ₹ 5000 crores in the Account of Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies so that the same may be disbursed in favour of the genuine depositors of the aforesaid Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies after proper identification and verification of the documents produced by the claimants/investors/depositors.

                        The Apex Court has further directed that the entire exercise will be completed by the Central Registrar at the earliest but not later than 9 months from the date of the aforesaid order, dated 29.03.2023, under the supervision of Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhas Reddy (former Judge of the Hon’ble Spureme of India) and one Amicus Curiae Mr. Gauarav Agarwal, Advocate.

            This O.P. has also reproduced the relevant portion of order dated 29.03.2023 as below :-

            “… the prayer sought in the present application seems to be reasonable and which shall be in the larger public interest/interest of the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Co-operative Societies,. Thereforee the present application is disposed of with the following directions:-

1. 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, who in turn shall disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies…..
2. The disbursement shall be supervised and monitored by justice R. Subhas Reddy, former judge of this court with the able assistance of Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae to assist Justice R. Subhash Reddy as well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies…”.

                The O.P. has claimed that in view of the order dated 29.03.2023, it is pertinent to observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed and granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies for disbursement of the maturity amounts of genuine depositors/investors and in accordance with the letter and spirit of the order, any and all grievances in relation to the same are to be directed towards the CRCS for disbursement of maturity amounts. Keeping in view of that order it is imperative that the complainant in the present matter be directed to file her application for procurement of maturity amount to the CRCS for verification and subsequent realization of the same.

            The CRCS had launched/opened the portal by the name of Sahara-CRCS REFUND PORTAL and the same was launched by the Hon’ble Home Minister of the country. And in view of the same it is advisable to the claimant petitioner to fill up the details as required in the portal to take bonafide the claim which would be scrutinized for checking the genuineness of the claim raised by the investor rather, pursuing the said society. Under the facts, circumstances and legal aspects the O.P. has filed an interim prayer to stay the proceeding for a period of 9 months or till the actual date of disbursement of ₹5000 Crores amongst the complainant/depositors or till any further order/orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and finally to dismiss the complaint with a direction to the complainant to approach to CRCS in respect of her claim as made in the present complaint.

Points to be decided

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this complaint case.
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable for deficiency of services towards the complainant and
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition.

Decisions and reasons thereof.

1. The complainant in her complaint has claimed herself as a consumer of the opposite parties and has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for their negligence and deficiency in services towards their consumer. On the other hand the opposite parties in their written statement has claimed that the complainant never hired any service of the opposite parties for which there was no occasion for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The Complainant had admitted to membership of the Society as per provisions of Section 3(n) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and therefore the provisions of the Act of 2002 as well as rules and byelaws of the Society are binding on the complainant. Being a member of the Society the complainant has to following the guidelines of the Society. Her rights, interests and obligations are governed by the Act of 2002 which is a complete code in itself and inter-alia provides for dispute redressal mechanism between the Society and its members. There is no relation between the consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite parties. Further the opposite parties have claimed that the District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. In deciding the matter we have referred a landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta {AIR 788,1494 SCC(1) 2193} as per clause 2(i)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, “service” means service of any description which may be available to potential users respondents. That case focused on the “services” but not on who were the service providers. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that a government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much amenable to this Act as any other private body rendering similar service. It further observed that the test to be adopted is not the type of person or authority but is it the  nature of duty and function performed by it regardless of status of person and authority. Thus, the relief under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to any other relief under any existing law and the consumer is free to approach Consumer Fora. In an another judgement the Hon’ble Apex Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs Union of India and others II (2007) CPJ-3(SC), held in para 8 of its order that the appellants in their written statement clearly admitted that they floated a scheme amongst its members and therefore the members who subscribed to the aforesaid scheme also become its consumers and when there is a fault on behalf of the society in providing its services to its consumers, there is certainly deficiency on the part of the appellants, rightly allowed the complaint of the respondent by directing the appellant to refund the maturity amount to the respondent along with interest from the date of its maturity till payment besides payment of compensation and cost of litigation. In the light of the above discussion and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court we may come to the conclusion that the complainant, undoubtedly, is a consumer of the opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act.

 

2. In view of the discussion stated above it is established that this Commission has proper Territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint.

 

3. In deciding the liability of the opposite parties towards their consumer in Consumer Protection Act, we are going to discuss the complaint petition, written statement of the opposite parties, evidence in affidavit of the complainant and the O.P. and written argument filed by both the parties. The complainant, as alleged, had maintained a term deposit Account under a scheme named (Golden VM) with the opposite parties in Tinsukia authorized centre (O.P. No.3). The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- on 15.03.2018 against the receipts No.80741154838, 80741154839, 80741154840 and 80741154841 and the opposite party issued Term Deposit Certificates No.11071801641 against all the payment receipts. The maturity value of each Term Deposit Certificate were ₹ 54,328/- and as such total maturity value of all the four certificates including additional associated certificate maturity value was estimated at ₹4,44,660/-. Maturity date of all the certificates was printed as 15.03.2021 in each certificate. But on maturity when the complainant demanded payment of maturity amount of the above certificates the O.P. No.3 being failed to release the maturity payment quoting that “at present no fund is available to release the same”. The complainant has exhibited all the four certificates accompanied by receipts of payment as exhibit No.1 to exhibit No.8. The redemption of the certificates was after expiry of 36 months. Inspite of repeated personal visits and telephonic conversation also the O.Ps. did not release the due payment of the complainant and in doing so the O.Ps. have committed deficient and negligent services towards the complainant, which is enough to make the O.P.s liable for their deficient and negligent service towards their consumer.

 

The O.P. in this case, in their written argument it was submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in order dated 29.03.2023 in I.A. bearing No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition(Civil) No.191 of 2022 directed SEBI to deposit an amount of ₹5000 crores in the Account of CRCS, so that the same may be deposited in favour of the genuine depositors of the aforesaid Sahara Credit Cooperative Society. It was also directed that entire exercise will be completed by the Central Registrar at the earliest but not later than nine months from the date of the aforesaid order. The Hon’ble Apex Court has directed and granted exclusive jurisdiction to the CRCS for disbursement of the maturity amounts of genuine depositors/investors and in accordance with the letter and spirit of the order, any and all grievances in relation to the same are to be directed towards the CRCS for disbursement of the maturity amount. O.Ps. have suggested in their written argument, that the complainant in the present matter be directed to file her application for procurement of maturity amount to the CRCS for verification and subsequent realization of the same. But nowhere in their argument the O.Ps. have stated that they ever instructed the complainant to pray before CRCS. We suppose that the complainant may not be aware of this fact for which she did not prefer any request before the CRCS, as required, within the stipulated time of nine months. But as the opposite parties assured the complainant to pay the maturity amounts against her Term Deposit Certificates they cannot evade the liability as claimed by them.

 

4. Under the facts, circumstances and findings stated above, we are of the considerate opinion that the complainant is legally entitled to get the reliefs claimed by herself. Therefore, this Commission unanimously directs the Opposite Party, M/s Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. to pay to the complainant –

 

1. An amount of ₹4,44,660/-(Rupees four lakh forty four thousand six hundred sixty)only being the maturity amount of all the four Term Deposit Certificates along with 6% interest per annum from the date of maturity till payment.

 

2. An amount of ₹ 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only  for harassment and mental agony and

 

3. An amount of ₹ 5000/- as cost of this case.

All the above mentioned amounts be deposited into the credit of this Commission by the Opposite Party within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgement and order.

The instant CC No.07/22 is accordingly disposed of on contest.

Send copy of this judgement and order to the O.P. for compliance. Complainant is to take step.