DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.06.2019

Sri Karunakar Nayak,President:

               The complainant   Sekhar Charan Sabat  has filed this consumer complaint  Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his   grievance before this Forum.  

               2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is an unemployed person and for livelihood has started a grocery shop. In the meantime, the Agent of the O.Ps persuaded the complainant for making deposits for earning interest so also safety of the earnings.  By the time there was wide spread propaganda of the aforesaid “Sahara India” and being influenced the complainant made fixed deposits with the O.Ps as per details hereunder:

After the matured period on 31.12.2014, 14.12.2014 and 06.01.2015 the complainant approached to O.P.No.1 at his office who took the plea of re-investing the matured amount to which the complainant never agreed. It was intimated for liquidating the liability soon but it has not been done. The complainant communicated letter to the O.Ps for payment of the assured money failing which maturity amount to be carried with interest @ 18% per annum. Even then, the O.Ps did not respond in any manner. The total of matured money has been calculated at Rs2,20,000/- and inspite of regular approach, the O.Ps have failed to comply in liquidating the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.2,20,000/- only against the maturity money of deposits with 18% interest per annum , compensation of Rs.30,000/- only for the harassments and mental agony, and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.

            3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 neither appeared nor filed his written version. Hence the O.P.No.1 set exparte on dated 08.02.2018.

            4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 appeared through his advocate and filed written version. It is stated that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for the payment of maturity amount against account in dispute, but by suppressing the correct facts the complainant has filed the present complaint in malafidely and fraudulently.  The claim of the complainant is based on false and baseless grounds. The complainant has suppressed the material facts in respect of this matter and is not entitled to be heard. The complainant is not entitled for any relief of any matter and no cause of action has ever arisen. Without prejudice to the above the O.Ps submit that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case as the complainant has already entered in to the arbitration agreement with the O.Ps at the time of opening the accounts that if any disputes arises between the company and members of account holder the matter shall be referred for adjudication by a sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties or person claiming under the proceeding of arbitration. At the time of investment the complainant had entered in to contractual liability with the O.Ps wherein he has agreed/declared to abide the terms and conditions of the scheme of the company.  At the time of investing the terms and condition of the scheme were explained to the complainant and after understanding the same, he made investment in the said scheme. The complainant of account holder is entitled to receive maturity payment of his account as per rule of the scheme/company.  On completion of the scheme period complainant can apply for payment of her contribution in the scheme and after proper checking and verification of the papers by the concerned official of company/authorized Branch office, complainant can receive his maturity payment with interest of invested amount of the complainant as per rule of scheme.  The complainant had never approached to the concerned Branch office for payment of his contributed/invested amount.  He directly approached to Hon’ble Forum with taking confidence of the company. The present complaint is filed by the complainant with the intention of avail wrongful benefits and as such the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. The complainant is not suffered from any mental agony or physical agony or any financial loss by the acts or omission of the O.P. The present complaint is based on false and baseless facts with malafidely intention and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

            5. On the date of hearing the advocate for complainant and O.P.No.2 are present. We heard argument from both sides at length and perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant has deposited 12 numbers of fixed deposits with the O.Ps and the said fixed deposits have already been matured. But inspite of repeated approach by the complainant the O.Ps have failed to release the maturity value in favour of the complainant.  The plea of the O.P.No.2 is that due to arbitration agreement between the parties this complaint is not maintainable under C.P.Act. But law is well settled that an agreement must not be illegal, immoral and oppose to public policy. The version of the O.P.No.2 is not accepted regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this case as because the jurisdiction of this learned Forum can not be taken away for the arbitration agreement between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that no arbitration proceeding is pending between the parties. Hence this Learned Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.  The Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held in case of Mrs. Punet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. And ors.  reported in 2003 (1) CPR 274 that “Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”.

            6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant undoubtedly has sustained mental agony for the acts of the O.Ps as such he is to be compensated.

            7. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they directed to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposits i.e.  Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Thousand) only  along with Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.

            The order is pronounced on this day of 25^th June 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties freed of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.