Orissa

Cuttak

CC/95/2023

Kasturi Kumari Bhuyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.95/2023

 

Kasturi Kumari Bhuyan,

W/o: Sri Prasanta Kumar Routray,

Permanent Resident of At:Darda Sasan,

P.O/P.S:Biridi,Dist:Jagatsinghpur,Pin-754111.

At present residing At:Nuapada(Balisahi Road),

P.O:Madhupatna,Town/Dist:Cuttack-753010.   ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.                   Branch Manager,

                            Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited,

    Cuttack Branch Office,

                            At:Cuttack Chandi Chhak,

   P.O:Buxi Bazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack-753001,

   (Odisha).

 

2.                      Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited,

                                   Regd. Office:  Sahara India Bhawan,

         1,Kapoorthala Complex,Aliganj,

          Locknow-226024(Uttar Pradesh),

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

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:       29.03.2023

  Date of Order:     01.09.2023

 

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 she had invested money in the Savings Bank A/c. bearing No.56936702459 in a scheme of O.Ps namely “SAHARA 4DS-60 MONTHS SCCSL” on 30.06.2017 and the tenure of the said scheme was 60 months.  In this process the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.58,000/- till 15.3.2022 and its maturity date was 30.06.2022.  It is stated by the complainant that on maturity of the said account, she was entitled to get Rs.58,000/- with interest towards the maturity value.    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 give her maturity amount of Rs. 58,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment besides the litigation expenses.

          The complainant has filed some documents alongwith her complaint petition in order to prove her case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.21.8.2023.

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 he had practised any unfair trade?

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

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 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, 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 learned counsel of 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. 

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 opened a Savings Bank A/c. bearing No.56936702459 in a monthly deposit scheme of O.Ps namely “SAHARA 4DS-60 MONTHS SCCSL” bearing No. 56936702459 on 30.06.2017.  The complainant in total had deposited Rs.58,000/- in the said scheme. The maturity date was 30.06.2022. The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of Savings Bank Member Ledger as filed by her.

It is not disputed that the complainant had invested money with the O.Ps.  The maturity date of the said deposit was 30.6.2022 but the O.Ps did not give the complainant the matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps many times to get her maturity amount.  But the O.Ps did not give the matured amount to her, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, the learned counsel for the complainant 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 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 her invested amount as claimed by her.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the maturity amount towards the total deposited amount of Rs.58,000/- in the S.B A/c. bearing No. 56936702459 under the “SAHARA 4DS-60 MONTHS SCCSL” scheme to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. from 30.06.2022 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment & financial loss as well as a sum of Rs.20,000/- 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 1^st day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                    

                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty                                                                                                                                                                                Member.

 

 

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President.