Orissa

Cuttak

CC/2/2021

Sasmita Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.02/2021

Sasmita Nayak,

W/O:Sri Prasanta Kumar Pandi,

Res. of At:Nua Sahi,P.O:Abhinaba Bidanasi(CDA),

P.S:Bidanasi,Town/Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,

Pin-753014.                                                                                        ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Regional Manager,

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited,

Cuttack Regional Office,At:Cuttack Chandi Chhak,

P.O:Buxi Bazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753001(Odisha).

 

2.        Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited,

Regd. Office:Sahara India Bhawan,

1,Kapoorthala Complex,Aliganj,Lucknow-226024(Uttar Pradesh),

Represented by its Managing Director.                                  ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     06.01.2021

Date of Order:   07.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. A.K.Samal,Adocate.

For the O.P.  No.1 :              Mr. M.P.Singh,Advocate.

For the O.P No.2:                           None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President. 

                                                               

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had invested money by purchasing eight number of Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Ps under name and style “SAHARA E.SHINE” after being persuaded by the Agent and officers of the O.Ps Society on different dates i.e. on 31.03.2012 & 30.4.2012.  The fixed deposit was made for 96 months.  Thus, as it appears from the complaint petition of the complainant, she was to receive by 31.3.20 & 30.4.20 a sum of Rs.44,404/- against each of the two Fixed Deposits  and a sum of Rs.41,792/- in five Fixed Deposits as made by her with the O.Ps  to the tune of Rs.16,000/- each in two Fixed deposits and Rs.17,000/- in five Fixed deposits.  Thus, as it appears that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- with the O.Ps with the hope of receiving a sum of Rs.3,39,560/- on respective date of its maturity.  After maturity date was over, the complainant in order to get back the assured sum from the O.P Society had visited their office but was taken aback to learn that in order to receive the matured amount she has to reinvest 75% of the matured amount in another deposit scheme of the Opposite Party society and then only she will be getting back 25% of the balance amount.  According to the complainant, there was no such terms and conditions made by the O.Ps when she had entered into the fixed deposit agreements with the O.P society.  Having no other way out, she had issued legal notice to the O.Ps and when nothing fruitful yielded, she had to take recourse before this Commission by filing the case with prayers to get back the matured amount of Rs.3,39,560/- against her eight number of Fixed Deposit Certificates  as purchased by her earlier alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of maturity amounts till the total amount is paid.  She has also prayed for issuance of directions to the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards her financial loss, mental agony and harassment.  She has further prayed for the cost of her case and for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            In order to prove her case, the complainant has filed copies of eight number of Fixed Deposit Certificates showing the maturity date as 25.8.20 and copy of the legal notice as sent on his behalf to the O.Ps.

2.         Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.2 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.12.4.22.  Thus, it is O.P no.1 only who has contested this case and has filed his written version.  According to the written version of O.P no.1, he admits that they have a Cooperative Society but it does not provide services to the members of it.  Each of the members is responsible to protect the interest of the society for which the members had contributed their shares for the benefit of the objects of the society.  Thus, the complainant had never hired any service of the society being a member.  It is for this, O.P no.1 through his written version has stated that there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant nor there is any practice of unfair trade by him.  According to O.P no.1, the complainant by becoming a member had joined himself to the Cooperative Society of the O.Ps and was bound by the bye-law of the said Society.  The O.Ps have relied upon certain decisions in this connection.  That Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs. The Managing Director.  The Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank, decided on 2.9.2013 held that the dispute between member and society is not a consumer dispute under the C.P.Act.  The Hon’ble State Commission, Tripura at Agartala in its judgment dt.10.5.2021 passed in Appeal no.02/2021 in the case of Smt. Paramita Deb Vs. The Sector Head,Agartala City Sector Office, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, discussed the issue regarding maintainability of consumer complaint  and held that District Commission did not commit any wrong while dismissing the complaint petition as not maintainable.  The Hon’ble Dist. Forum-Bhiwani in C.C. No.73/2018 Shudhansu Sharma Vs. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and others and Hon’ble District Forum-Raisen in C.C.No.03/2018 in the case of Sri Ram Swaroop Sharma Vs. Branch Manager Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and another, have opined that consumer complaint filed by member against the society is not maintainable before the District Commission.   In another similar nature of case CC No.31/2018 in the case of Santosh Bhavsar Vs. Prakash Patil Sahara India Pariwar and other, District Commission-Sihore has opined that the dispute between the Member and Society does not fall under the purview of Consumer Dispute.  Accordingly, the complainant being the member of the O.Ps Society, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost as per the written version of O.P no.1.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version as filed by the O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they have practised any unfair trade?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.ii.

            Out of the three issues as framed here in this case, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration.

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased eight number of Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.P Company namely “SAHARA E.SHINE” and each of the said certificates was for a value of Rs.17,000/- & Rs.16,000/- with the respective maturity amount of Rs.44,404/- & Rs.41,792/- on the respective date of maturity.  The contention of the O.Ps is that the complainant had contributed the said amount of R.1,64,000/- to the Society for protecting the interest of the Society and thus she had not hired any service and accordingly there is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.  While probing into the documents as filed here in this case and while perusing the written notes of submission of the complainant as well as that of O.P no.1, it is noticed that the complainant has relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court published in 2004 NCJ 255(SC) in the case of the Secretary,Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M. Lalitha(Dead) represented through L.Rs and others wherein the importance of C.P.Act is taken into consideration which protects the interest of the consumers.  The complainant has also relied upon a decision in the case of Anil Pahwa Vrs. Baldip Singh and Ors. 111(2011) CPJ 424(NC) wherein it is held that Cooperative Society- Deposits - No remittance- Alleged deficiency in service-Territorial jurisdiction- Limitation - Forum allowed complaint - State Commission dismissed appeal - Hence revision - Contention of OP that they acted as office bearers of Cooperative Society, hence not liable – Not accepted- Complainants had believed them to be employees of State Bank of India and their investment would run no risk – OPs appear to have played a clever game to entice more deposits and faith in depositors – Part of cause of action of giving deposits arose at Chandigarh – Complainants have not received their deposits until date it would amount to continuing cause of action – Objections unsustainable- Order of Fora upheld.  The complainant has also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2001(3) CPR 194(NC) in the case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft & Credit Society Ltd. decided on 26.9.2001 wherein it is held that Non-refund of fixed deposit amounts to depositors was deficiency in service.  Thus, taking into account these pertinent decisions as relied on by the complainant it is noticed that these decisions are squarely applicable to the present case in hand.  The Opposite parties have indeed played clever game to embezzle the deposits of the complainant on the garb of their membership to the society of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have not produced any iota of evidence in order to show that infact they had apprised the complainant prior to her making the fixed deposits, that her money would be for the protection of the society and after knowing the same, the complainant had agreed and had invested her money.  Thus, the plea as taken by the opposite parties in order to escape from the liability in this case do not hold good and the decisions relied upon by the opposite parties also do not apply properly due to different facts and circumstances and rather, the decisions as relied upon by the complainant is more appropriate and out of those one of such citations being the verdict of our Hon’ble Apex Court is mostly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the discussions as made above, it is concluded that the case of the complainant as filed is maintainable and complainant is undoubtedly entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.P no.1 & exparte against O.P no.2.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, they are directed to  pay the complainant the maturity sum of Rs.3,39,560/- towards the eight number of Fixed Deposits as made by the complainant with the O.Ps together with interest there on @ 12% per annum from 31.3.2020 for the Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing no.351003636761,351003636762 and 351003636763 and with effect from 30.4.2020 for the other five of her Fixed Deposits till the total amount is quantified.  The O.ps are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards her mental agony and harassment.  The O.Ps are also to bear the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 7^th day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member