Orissa

Cuttak

CC/443/2023

Ashok Kumar Dalai - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A K Samal

27 Jun 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.443/2023

 

Ashok Kumar Dalai,

S/o: Judhistir Dalai,

Resident of At/PO:Gatiroutpatana,

Dist:Cuttack,Pin-754100,Odisha.                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        Cuttack Sector Office,Jagannath Complex,

                                      Professor Pada,Bajrakabati Road,

                                      P.O:Buxi Bazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

                                      Pin-753001,Odisha, represented by

                                      Its Authorised Signatory.

 

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        Regd. Office,Sahara India Bhawan,

        1, Kapoorthala Complex,Aliganj,

         Lucknow-226420,Uttar Pradesh

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

 

 

Present:          Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:    30.12.2023

Date of Order:  27.06.2024

 

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

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.    

The case of the complainant in short is that he had invested money by purchasing two nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates such as certificate bearing No.351005094983 on payment of Rs.12,000/- & No. 351005094977 on payment of Rs.13,000/- respectively in one of the scheme of the O.Ps namely “SAHARA E.SHINE” on 14.4.2012.  The maturity period was 96 months for both the said Fixed Deposit Certificates under “SAHARA E.SHINE” scheme.  On maturity, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 31,344/- in the Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing No. 351005094983 and a sum of Rs.33,956/- in the Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing No. 351005094977 respectively and in total he was entitled to get an amount of Rs.65,300/- on 14.4.2020.  After the maturity date, the complainant in order to get his matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions  but the O.Ps did not release his maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay his maturity amount in the certificates calculated as  Rs. 65,300/- alongwith 12% interest as well as Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and harassment other than litigation expenses. 

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps did not appear.  Hence, they were set exparte vide order dt.08.04.2024.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            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 had practised any unfair trade?

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

 

Point no.i.

The O.Ps are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant is a member of the O.Ps.  Hence, the question arose whether any dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps is maintainable before this Commission as there is provision of invoking Arbitration clause in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainant against the O.Ps.  In this regard there is a pertinent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of the complainant’s case reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, in the case of the Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Cooperative Societies Act, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as there is no provision in the said Co-operative Society Act ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission.  There is another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards to maintainability of Real Estate matter before the Consumer Commission, whereas the RERA Act has been introduced to deal with that matter and that decision has been reported in AIR 2021 SC,70 in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. Vrs. Anil Patni and others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that RERA Act does not debar for adjudication of dispute by the Consumer Commission for redressal of grievances of the complainant relating to the Real Estate matter as well as held that the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to the Real Estate matter. 

At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019.  In Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

In view of the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the case of the complainant is maintainable before this Commission.

As regards to limitation, the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Subhash Meheta Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 2020(2) CPR, 555 (NC).  It is held by the Hon’ble National Commission “maturity amount under Fixed Deposit if not paid, the cause of action would be treated as continuing”.

In view of such decision of Hon’ble National Commission, it is held that the present complaint case has been filed within the limitation period.

Point No.ii.

The averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the xerox copies of fixed deposit certificates as filed by him.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased two number of Fixed Deposit Certificates such as certificate bearing No.351005094983 on payment of Rs.12,000/- & No. 351005094977 on payment of Rs.13,000/- respectively in one of the scheme of the O.Ps namely “SAHARA E.SHINE” on 14.4.2012. The maturity period was 96 months for the said Fixed Deposit Certificates under “SAHARA E. SHINE” scheme.   On maturity, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 31,344/- towards the maturity amount in the Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing No. 351005094983 and a sum of Rs.33,956/- towards the maturity amount in the Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing No. 351005094977 respectively and in total he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.65,300/- on 14.4.2020 towards the maturity amount.    The O.Ps had not given the complainant the matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps many times to get his maturity amount but they did not give the matured amount of his certificates, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, there is a decision of Hon’ble National Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant which is reported in 2001(3) CPR, 194(NC) in the case of Smt. Kalawati & others vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft & Credit Society Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that non-refund of fixed deposit after maturity comes under the deficiency in service.  This decision is applicable in the present case.  The complainant had invested money with the O.Ps for earning interest.  The complainant would have earned interest if he would have invested his money in any other private sector or public sector undertaking.  But in the present case the O.Ps did not give the matured amount by which  the complainant was deprived of getting his principal amount as well as interest component.   Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the complainant’s matured amount after its maturity period.  This point is answered in favour of the complainant. 

Point no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.65,300/- towards the total maturity amount besides other reliefs.    Hence, it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the total matured amount of Rs. 65,300/- in respect of certificate No. 351005094983 & 351005094977 to the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 14.4.2020 till the amount is quantified.   The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as  a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.  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 27^th day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                              Member.

 

 

                                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                            President.