Orissa

Cuttak

CC/66/2022

Nrusingh Prasad Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.66/2022

 

Nrusingha Prasad Padhi,

S/O:Lae Bijoya Chandra Padhi,

Permanent resident Bisinabar Das Sahi,

P.O:ArunodayaMarket,P.S:Badambadi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753012(Odisha),

At present residing At:Flat No.D-3,

Platinum Heights,Mini By Pass Road,PO/Dist:Nellore-524003,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                  ... 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,

          Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

                      (Sahara India) Regd. Office:Sahara India Bhawan,

                      1 Kapoorthala Complex,

         Aliganj,Lucknow-226024,Uttar Pradesh.

 

   5.    Managing Worker and Chairman of Sahara India Paribar,

           Sahara India Bhawan,1 Kapoorthala Complex,

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

 

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     13.04.2022

Date of Order:    03.07.2023

 

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 opening five numbers of A/c on23.8.2014 in a monthly scheme i.e. “Sahara G. Anokha” launched by the O.Pshaving A/c. No.13525103452, A/c. No.13525103453,A/c. No.13525103454, A/c. No.1352510345 & A/c. No.13525103456.It is stated by the complainant that as per the scheme he had deposited Rs.3,100/- per month for 72 months and in total he had deposited Rs.2,23,000/- in each of his A/c and all of whichA/cs were to be matured on 23.8.2020 and the maturity value was Rs.3,02,559/-for each of the A/c. The maturity period was 72 months for the said all accounts.The total maturity amount of the Five Accounts was calculated as Rs.15,12,795/-.   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 him maturity amount of all the five accounts, calculated as  Rs.15,12,795/- alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

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

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 his complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by him.  The complainant has also filed evidence on affidavit as well as further evidence of affidavit by clarifying the calculation of matured amount, which facts remains uncontroverted.

Admittedly, the complainant had invested money by opening five numbers of passbooks having A/c. No.13525103452, A/c. No.13525103453,A/c. No.13525103454, A/c. No.1352510345 & A/c. No.13525103456 on 23.8.2014 by depositing Rs.3,100/- in each of the A/c per month for 72 months.In total he had deposited Rs.2,23,000/-  in each of the A/c in one of the schemes of the O.Ps namely “SAHARA G. ANOKHA”  and all the Accounts were to be matured on 23.8.2020 and the maturity value is  Rs.3,02,559/-  for each of the A/c.  Thus,the maturity amount of all the accounts are calculated as Rs.15,12,795/-.   The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of the pass books as well as ledger statement supplied by the O.Ps.

It is not disputed that the complainant had opened five nos. of passbook having different A/c no. with the O.Ps.and had deposited a sum of  Rs.11,15,000/- in total.  The maturity dates of the said accountswere clearly mentioned in the said passbook as 23.8.2020, which were due after 72 months of opening of the pass book.     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 each of his account, 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 he 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 his 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 all the five different accounts, as claimed by him.  The complainant has filed calculation sheet, which is found to be correct being not controverted and from which it reveals that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,12,795/- towards the maturity amount of all five nos. of accounts.    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.15,12,795/- towards the five nos. of accounts to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective date of maturity of accounts i.e from 23.8.2020 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 3^rd day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President.