Date of Filing                      :    14 September, 2020.

Date of Judgement             :    07 March, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

                   This case arises when Sri Nabin Naskar, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint petition under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  (the Act), against the Domjur Branch of 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.

                   The material facts arising out of the complaint petition and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited at the office of the OP an amount of ₹11,000/- on 15/12/2016 in a Fixed Deposit Scheme for 18 months. The OP company issued a certificate on the same date bearing Certificate No. 925004268222  and account no.66206700039. The date of maturity as is written in the certificate was 15/06/2018 and the maturity amount is written as ₹12,793/-.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of the maturity period he went to the office of the OP on 15/06/2018  and requested to  pay the maturity amount but they did not pay any heed to his request to disburse the same according to the certificate.  He then visited again on 08/07/2019 to the OP with the same request but the result was the same.  As his repeated requests brought no satisfactory result he filed the instant complaint before this Commission praying to direct the OPs : (i) to pay the maturity amount of ₹12,793/- together with interest till realisation, (ii) to pay ₹5,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment of the complainant and ₹5,000/- as litigation cost.

                   Complainant filed copies of (i) the Certificate bearing No. 925004268222 issued by the OP company on 15/12/2016 and (ii) his AADHAAR Card 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.  The OP appeared before this Commission and filed their written version. Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Thereafter the OP did not file any interrogatories nor did they file any Evidence. Ultimately argument was heard in details and the complainant filed Brief Notes on Argument. OP did not turn up to participate in the argument and they did not file their B. N. A.  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.

DECISION WITH REASONS

                   The factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹11,000/- on 15/12/2016 in a Scheme named as “F2 SAHARA.A.SELECT” of M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated herein above, for a period of 18 months and the company issued a Certificate to this effect bearing No. 925004268222 for this payment. The allotted account number is 66206700039 as stated in the Certificate. The date of opening of the account was 15/12/2016 and the maturity date was fixed on 15/06/2018. The maturity amount is written in this certificate as ₹12,793/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date the OP failed to make payment of the maturity amount.  Complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests OP had not disbursed the maturity amount of ₹12,793/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

                   In their written version the OP denied all the allegations brought forward by the complainant in his complaint petition.  They said that they had not denied to make payment of the maturity amount to the complainant.   They stated that all the allegations are false and fabricated as the complainant did never come to the OP along with original certificate and KYC documents to be submitted for disbursement for which they were unable to disburse the maturity amount.  They also stated that there was an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which they were unable to make payment.  Their submission is that they were not negligent in their duty and no deficiency in service had been occurred from their part.  Moreover, they viewed that the complainant is not a consumer in the instant case.

                   A question now arises that whether the complainant is a Consumer or not as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  Before going through this question we may take note of the Order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes’ Redressal Commission in RP Nos. 823 to 826 of 2001 – Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. – decided on 13/03/2001, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has opined that a Co-operative Society do come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Now, the facts in this case state that the complainant deposited his hard money in a specific scheme of the OP and the OP assured a higher return which implies that the OP promised to give service to the depositor in the form of monetary benefit.  This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” as is defined under Section 2(7) of the C. P. Act, 2019 who intended to avail “Service”, as per Sec. 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019, from the OP.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a company for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act of that company.  Here the company in question is the Service Provider whose service is availed by the Depositor/Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of the financial transaction like this case.  The OP took deposit of the said amount for a particular scheme with a promise to return higher amount after a particular period of time.  Complainant deposited his money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OP who was running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he requested the OP repeatedly to refund the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP had issued notice to the depositor/complainant after the date of maturity to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OP company did not contest this case after filing their written version and the complainant has not stated anything on this matter in his complaint petition as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.  Moreover, the OP stated in the written version that there was an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which they could not remit the maturity amount.  But they had not explained it in detail and they had not clarified the fact that they had collected money from the depositor/complainant knowing fully well that they could not disburse the maturity amount due to the embargo order.

                   However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount till filing this instant complaint for which he has come before this Commission and the OP is deficient in providing the promised ‘service’ as they have not returned the promised maturity amount.  So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to claim the maturity amount and the OP is liable to refund it.  The OP 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 beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest on the matured amount. But it is a settled principle that when award is given in the form of interest then awarding both interest and compensation will be 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.  The complainant is also entitled to get ₹5,000/- as litigation cost as he is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get relief of his grievance.           

                   Hence, it is

ORDERED

                   That the complaint Case No. CC/177/2020  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          ₹12,793/- along with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of maturity, i. e. from 15/06/2018, till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay ₹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.

                   Let a copy of this order be issued, on demand, to both the parties free of cost. 

Dictated and corrected by me

                   Member.