1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he being persuaded by OP.3, the Agent of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society, proposed to open a monthly deposit scheme under the Ops namely “Sahara M. Benefit” and deposited Rs.3000/- per month w.e.f. 07.03.2012 vide A/c. No.24224201942.  It is submitted that the OP.3 collected premium amount every month with entry in the passbook till 01/2016 but thereafter due to bad financial condition, the complainant could not deposit the premiums.  After expiry of 60 months of commencement of the scheme, the complainant since March, 2017 has been approaching the Ops 2 & 3 claiming maturity benefits but with some plea or the other, the Ops are avoiding payment.  It is further submitted that the Ops are also insisting the complainant to deposit half of the maturity value in other scheme floated by them but as the money is urgently required for his daughter’s marriage, the complainant is not agreeing with the Ops.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to release the maturity amount with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity and Ops 2 & 3 to pay Rs.50, 000/- each to the complainant towards compensation besides cost of Rs.10, 000/- to the complainant.

 2.                         The Ops filed counter in joint through their A/R and took up preliminary objection that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case as the complainant has already entered into the arbitration agreement with the Ops at the time of opening the accounts that if any dispute arises between the Company and member of account holder, the matter shall be referred for arbitration and the award given by the sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties claiming under the proceeding of arbitration.  The Ops in this case admitted about opening of monthly deposit accounts on 07.03.2012 under Sahara. M. Benefit by the complainants and deposit of Rs.1, 41,000/- vide account No.24224201942 till 01/2016 but denied about approach of the complainants with necessary documents for verification of the same by the society and release of maturity amount under those accounts.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

3.                         The complainant has filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the OPs through their A/R and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed Sahara. M. Benefit scheme from the Ops on 07.03.2012 and has deposited monthly premiums up to 01/2016 amounting to Rs.1, 41, 000/-.  The complainant has filed copy of passbook and his case is that he approached Ops 2 & 3 to receive maturity amount but the Ops are not paying heed to the requests of the complainant.

5.                         The Ops denying the approach of complainant raised a preliminary issue stating that in view of existence of arbitration clause under the scheme, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case.  Before going into merit of this case, we are inclined to decide the preliminary issue at the first instance.  It is a settled principle of law that, “Arbitration clause in the agreement does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Forum under the Act.  According to Sec.3 of the Act, the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.  In absence of any specific bar to other Forums and by virtue of Sec.3 of the C. P. Act, the Forum has got parallel jurisdiction to entertain this case and as such, this case is maintainable in this Forum.  Thus the preliminary issue goes in favour of the complainants.

6.                         While coming to the merit of this case, it is seen that the complainant has deposited Rs.1, 41,000/- under the scheme as on 01/2016.  After maturity of deposits, the Ops have no right to retain the money involved in it.  On approach of the complainant, it is obligatory on the part of the Ops to release the amount forthwith but in this case due to non release of maturity value the complainant has approached this Forum.  The Ops have come up with untenable plea that the complainant has never approached them with necessary papers for release of his money.  If the Ops say so, soon after filing of this case, they should have effected payments and come with counter but they did not do so.  Hence non release of maturity amount in favour of the complainant after maturity date in our opinion certainly amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.  Due to non receipt of maturity amount, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.  Further in this case, the OP.2 has issued passbook and received the amount.  Hence the said OP.2 is liable to pay the maturity value to the complainant with due interest as per scheme till date of payment.  The OP. No.1 being the head of the Sahara Group is also jointly liable for payment of maturity amount to the complainant.

7.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.1, 41,000/- with as usual rate of interest under the scheme till actual payment and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  If the Ops failed to make payment within the given period, they are to pay Rs.100/- towards compensation per day to the complainant from the date of this order over and above the guaranteed interest under the scheme.

(to dict.)