Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Ananta Kumar Paul, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, herein after called the said Act, against (1) M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., hereinafter called the Opposite Party or OP, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP arising out of non-payment of maturity amount by the OP company.

            The material facts of the complaint and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in the ‘Sahara.A.Select’ scheme of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP as stated above, hereinafter called the said scheme.  The OP company issued a Certificate in this effect bearing Certificate No. 763003383107 on 31/01/2014.  The date of maturity as written in this certificate was 31/01/2015 and the maturity amount was written as Rs.22,000/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he repeatedly requested the OP on various occasions, viz. on 31/01/2015, 08/02/2016, 31/03/2018 and so on, for disbursement of the maturity amount but every time the OP company did not pay any heed to his requests.  Finding no other alternative way he came before this Commission  praying to direct the OP company: (i) to refund the maturity amount of Rs.22,000/- along with interest, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Complainant filed copies of (i) Certificate bearing No.763003383107 issued by the OP company  and (ii) Identity Card bearing no. WB/24/166/177024 issued by the Election Commission of India as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notice was served upon the OP after admission to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OP Appeared and filed their written version.  Thereafter complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  OP failed to file any questionnaire nor did they file their evidence. Ultimately argument was heard and complainant filed his Brief Notes on Argument.  We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.  Original receipts and other documents issued by the OP company are taken into consideration for reaching to final decision.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            Before starting our discussion it is to be noted that the Surname of the complainant and his father are written in the complaint petition as PAUL whereas the Certificate issued by the OP company as well as the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India the Surname of the complainant is written as PAL. As the complainant signed in every page of the complaint in Bengali scrip-t, we should ignore this discrepancy in writing the Surname of the complainant by the office of the concerned Advocate.  We are considering the name of the complainant as ANANTA KUMAR PAL instead of Ananta Kumar Paul.  It is also to be noted that this complaint was admitted after considering the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the case by the complainant.

            The factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 31/01/2014 in the Scheme named and styled as ‘SAHARA.A.SELECT’ Scheme of M/s. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, the OP as stated herein above, for one year and the company issued Certificate to this effect bearing No. 763003383107.  The allotted account no. is 66205100125 as stated in this Certificate.  The date of opening this account was 31/01/2014 and the maturity date was fixed on 31/01/2015 and the maturity amount was stated to be Rs.22,000/-. Complainant stated that after the maturity date the OP company failed to make payment of the maturity amount to him.  Complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests OP company did not disburse the maturity amount of Rs.22,000/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            In their written version the OP company stated that they had no ill motive or malafide intentions for not making the payment.  They were unable to make payment since there was an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  But the OP company has not filed any document in support of their claim for non-payment.  It is also stated in their written version that the OP company could not make payment of the maturity amount as the complainant failed to produce original Sahara Certificate and KYC before the OP company for processing and disbursement.  It is also stated in their written version that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under the C. P. Act as this is a commercial/financial transaction and the complainant’s grievance should be redressed in Civil Court, not in a Consumer Forum, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission where it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a bank or a non-banking financial company (NBFC) for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act to that bank or NBFC.  Here, the complainant/consumer deposited some amount in a scheme operated by the OP company promising a higher return. So, the bank or the NBFC, as the case may be, is the Service Provider as defined in the Act whose service is availed by the Consumer.  So, a Consumer Forum/Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of the financial transaction like this case. However, we do not know whether the OP company is a registered banking company or an NBFC, as there is no documents is filed in this case regarding this matter, but the OP company took deposit of the said amount for a particular scheme with a promise to return higher amount after a fixed period of time.  Complainant deposited his hard earned money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OP company who was running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he visited the office of the OP company frequently to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP company had issued notice to the complainant after the maturity date to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OP company did not annexe any document in this matter, nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in his complaint, as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount for which he has come before this Commission and the OP company is deficient in providing proper service as they have not returned the promised maturity amount.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim the maturity amount and the OP company is liable to refund the maturity amount.  The OP company is liable to compensate for their deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get relief by way of compensation as the promised amount is lying with the OP company even after the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest on the matured amount. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement in DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019] stated: “when interest is awarded by way of damages awarding additional compensation is unjustified”.  So, we think awarding interest @ 9% on the maturity amount with effect from the date of maturity is enough as a compensation the complainant is entitled to receive from the OP company.  He also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost as he is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get relief of his grievance with the help of this Commission.

            Hence,

                                        it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/174/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.22,000/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 31/01/2015 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within this abovementioned time period failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realisation. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.