Orissa

Cuttak

CC/67/2022

Geetanjali Choudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M K Pati & associates

22 May 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.67/2022

 

Geetanjali Choudhury,

W/O: Sri Fakir Charan Choudhury,

At:Biswakarma Sahi(Mangalabag),

P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Mangalabag,

Cuttack Town,Dist:Cuttack-753001.                        ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.        The Sector Manager/Asst. Manager worker,

        Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        And Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

        (Sahara India),Choudhury Bazar Sector 1352,

        P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Cantonment Road,

        Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753001.

 

2.     The Regional Manager,Worker.                             

         Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

         Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

         And Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

         (Sahara India) Territorial Office,Plot No.50,

         Sahidnagar,P.O/P.S:Sahidnagar,

         Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda,Pin-751007.

 

3.     The Zonal Manager Worker,

                                          Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          And Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

          (Sahara India),Plot No.50,

          Sahidnagar,P.O/P.S:Sahidnagar,

          Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda,Pin-751007.

 

4.       The Authorized Person,

          Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

      Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          (Sahara India) Regd. Office,Mangal Jyoti,

          101,227/2 AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,

          West Bengal-700020.

 

5.        Managing Worker and Chairman of Sahara India Paribar,

               Sahara IndiaBhawan,1 Kapoorthala Complex,

           Aliganj,Lucknow-226024,Uttar Pradesh.                      ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     13.04.2022

Date of Order:    22.05.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. M.K.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                        

          The case of the complainant in short is that she had invested money by purchasing five Fixed Deposit Certificates such as certificate bearing No.465001169635, having A/c. No.13526414155 on payment of Rs.16,562/-, No.465001167092 having A/c.  No.13526409574 on payment of Rs.64,339/-,No.465001167093 having A/c No.13526409575 on payment of Rs.32,954/-, No.465001167123 having A/c No.13526409568 on payment of Rs.1,17,692/- & Certificate bearing No.465001169577 having A/c 13526414146 on payment of Rs.19,432/- from the O.Ps on 13.6.2021,29.2.2016,29.2.2016,29.2.2016 & on 13.6.2016 respectively in one of the schemes of the O.Ps namely “Golden A Double”.  The maturity period was 64 months for the said Fixed Deposit Certificates.  On maturity, she was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.33,124/- on 13.01.2021 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c No.13526414155, Rs.1,28,678/- on 29.6.2021 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c No.13526409574, Rs.65,908/- on 29.6.2021 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c No.13526409575, Rs.2,35,384/- on 29.6.2021 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c No.13526409568 & Rs.38,864/- on 13.10.2021 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate  having A/c No.13526414146 and in total she was entitled to get Rs.5,01,958/-towards the maturity amount.    After the maturity date, the complainant in order to get her matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions  but the O.Ps did not release her maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay her maturity amount in the certificates calculated as  Rs.5,01,958/- alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove her case as well as evidence on affidavit in support of her case.

2.       The O.Ps did not appear.  Hence, they were set exparte. 

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 in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainant against the O.Ps.  In this regard the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of his 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.  He also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.  Hence the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to the Real Estate matter.  The complainant also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022)6 SCC,496 in the case of Voda Phone, Idea Cellular Ltd. Vrs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if there is provision U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, the aggrieved person can approach the Consumer Commission as the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is not ousted U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.  The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Law of land and would prevail upon decisions of Hon’ble National Commission as well as other decisions as relied upon by the O.Ps.

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.

Point No.ii.

The averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by her.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased five numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates such as certificate bearing A/c No.13526414155on payment of Rs.16,562/-, certificate bearing A/c No.13526409574 on payment of Rs.64,339/-, certificate bearing A/c No.13526409575 on payment of Rs.32,954/-, certificate bearing A/c No.13526409568 on payment of Rs.1,17,692/- & Certificate bearing A/c No.13526414146 on payment of Rs.19,432/- from the O.Ps on 13.6.2016,29.2.2016&29.2.2016.  The complainant had purchased last two certificates from other certificate holder, who had purchased the same from the O.Ps on29.2.2016 & on 13.6.2016 respectively. All the certificates were purchased under one of the scheme of the O.Ps namely “Golden A Double”.    The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of the Fixed Deposit certificates filed by her.

It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased five Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Ps on payment of Rs.2,50,979/-.  The maturity date of the said certificates/bonds was clearly mentioned in the said certificates as 13.01.2021,29.6.2021,29.6.2021,29.6.2021 & 13.10.2021, which was due after 64 months of purchasing the certificates.     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 her maturity amount but they did not give the matured amount of her certificates, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Commission 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 she would have invested her 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 her principal amount as well as the 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 issue 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 the maturity amount in respect of the Fixed Deposit Certificates as claimed by her.  The complainant has filed calculation sheet, which found to be correct and from which it reveals that the complainant was entitled to get Rs.5,01,958/- towards the maturity amount of all the Fixed Deposit Certificates.    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.5,01,958/- towards the Fixed Deposit Certificatesto the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective date of maturity of the certificates till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.  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 22^nd day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President.