Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case arises when Sri Sanjay Paul, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after called the said Act, against the Branch Manager, Domjur branch of M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, 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 a total sum of Rs.1,11,000/- in the scheme named as ‘F1 SAHARA.Y.SELECT’ of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated hereinabove, on 23/07/2018, 30/05/2018, 29/10/2018, 26/10/2018, 09/08/2018, 29/08/2018, 27/04/2018, 21/05/2018, 23/05/2018, 21/05/2018 and 31/12/2018 respectively. The OP company then issued 15 (fifteen) Certificates to the complainant/depositor on that date of which two were for deposit of Rs.10,000/- each and remaining 04 were for Rs.6,000/- each and 04 were for deposit of Rs.5,000/- each and 01 was for deposit of Rs.15,000/- and 02 was for deposit of Rs.8,000/- and 01 was for deposit of Rs.7,000/- and 01 was for deposit of Rs.9,000/-.  The tenure of all these deposits was 12 months and the maturity dates were written as 23/07/2019, 30/05/2019, 29/10/2019, 26/10/2019, 09/08/2019, 29/08/2019, 27/04/2019, 21/05/2019, 23/05/2019, 31/05/2019 respectively in each certificate and the total maturity amount, summing up the written maturity amounts in these certificates, became Rs.1,20,990/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he repeatedly requested the OP 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 to this Forum/Commission with his complaint praying to direct the OP company: (i) to refund the total maturity amount of Rs.1,20,990/- along with interest, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Complainant filed copies of (i) 15 (fifteen) certificates issued by the OP company.

                 Notice was served upon the OP, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OP appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Later, the OP failed to file any questionnaire and Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the 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 he 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 a total sum of Rs.1,11,000/- on 23/07/2018, 30/05/2018, 29/10/2018, 26/10/2018, 09/08/2018, 29/08/2018, 27/04/2018, 21/05/2018, 23/05/2018, 21/05/2018 and 31/12/2018 respectively in a particular Scheme names as ‘F1 SAHARA.Y.SELECT’ of M/s. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, the OP as stated hereinabove, having it’s registered office at Sahara India Bhawan,  1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow–226 024.  The OP issued 15 (fifteen) certificates for such deposit and the tenure of each deposit was for 12 months. 

     According to the above noted statement, complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.1,11,000/- on 23/07/2018, 30/05/2018, 29/10/2018, 26/10/2018, 09/08/2018, 29/08/2018, 27/04/2018, 21/05/2018, 23/05/2018, 21/05/2018 and 31/12/2018 respectively and the OP company issued fifteen certificates of different denominations stating the tenure of the scheme for 12 months. Complainant alleged that after the maturity date his repeated efforts of getting back the maturity amount became fruitless as the OP company failed to comply with their promised service by returning the maturity amount.

In their written version OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition. They alleged that the complainant failed to submit the KYC and other documents for his claim for the maturity amount. The OP stated that this complaint was imaginary and liable to be dismissed.  But they failed to establish their statement by explaining it with reasons.  No document has been filed by them in support of their claim.  Here, it is to be noted that the OP has confessed in their written version that there was a ‘maturity amount’ and thereby a ‘maturity date’ after which the maturity amount was to be disbursed to the customer/complainant.  The depositor/complainant must expect the ‘maturity amount’ after the maturity date. Here, according the complaint, the complainant’s repeated efforts to get back the maturity amount from the OP company became fruitless. Complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests the OP company did not disburse the maturity amount of Rs.1,20,990/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?  The facts state that complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OP and the OP assured a higher return which means 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” under the OP as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 who availed “Service”, as defined under section 2(1)(O) of this Act, of the OP company.  There is an array of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission wherein 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 under that bank or NBFC.  Here the bank or the NBFC, as the case may be, is the Service Provider whose service is availed by the Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of a dispute in 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 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 particular period of time.  Complainant deposited his money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OP company who were 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 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, nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in his complaint petition 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 Forum/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 for nearly four years beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest on the maturity amount, but keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019],  this Commission thinks awarding interest @ 9% on the maturity amount with effect from the date of maturity will be sufficient enough as a compensation. The complainant is 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,                          

O R D E R E D

That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/1/2020 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.1,20,990/- and the Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from date within this abovementioned time period failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realization.

In case, the O.P. does not comply the award passed by this Commission within stipulated period, the complainant is given liberty to take recourse of law.Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website     Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost.

The word file is drafted and corrected by me.

(Minakshi Chakraborty)

               Member

D.C.D.R.C., Howrah