Orissa

Cuttak

CC/46/2022

Sampada Sutar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M K Pati & associates

05 Dec 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.46/2022

 

SampadaSutar,

W/O:SriNityanandaSutar,

At/PO:Kalyani Nagar,

P.S:Madhupatna,Cuttack Town,

Dist:Cuttack-753013.                                                          ... 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 KapoorthalaComplex,Aliganj,

Lucknow,226420,UttarPradesh.

 

5.        The Authorized Person,

Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

(Shara India) Regd. Office: Mangal Jyoti,

101,227/2 AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,

West Bengal-700020.                                                    

 

6.        The Authorized Person,

    Multi Purpose Society Ltd.(Sahara India),

    Regd.Office195,Zone-1, In front of D.B.Mall,

         M.P.Nagar,Bhopal,Madhypapradesh-462011.

                             7. 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 SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     15.03.2022

Date of Order:    05.12.2022

 

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

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                                       

          Case of the complainant in short is that she had invested money by purchasing four number of Fixed Deposit Certificates from theO.Ps in one of the scheme of the O.Ps namely “Sahara Worker SC”.  The maturity period was 36 months for all the Fixed Deposit Certificates.  It reveals from the complaint petition that four separate  account numbers were assigned to the above four Fixed Deposit Certificates.  On maturity, shewas entitled to receive an amount of Rs.7,307/- from the Account no.13527203018 on 14.6.21, Rs.5072/- from account no.13527203021 on 14.6.21, Rs.9,058/- from the account no.13527204162 on 9.8.21 and Rs.19,885/- from account no.13527204504 with extra benefit in all cases totalling to Rs.2,483/-.  In total, she was entitled to get Rs.41,322/- by the date of maturity.  After the maturity date, the complainant in order to get her matured amount from the O.Ps had visited their office on many occasions  but the O.Ps by taking different pleas 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 total for all certificates calculated as Rs.41,322/- as well as extra benefit of Rs.5158/-, intoto Rs.46,480/- alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to proveher case.

2.       Though the O.Ps have appeared but did not file their written versions.  Hence, they are 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?

PointNo.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

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

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased four number of Fixed Deposit Certificates namely “Sahara Worker SC” from the O.Ps on payment of Rs.4,805/-, Rs.3,335/-, Rs.5,956/- and Rs.13,075/- on 14.6.18,14.6.18,9.8.18 and 25.8.18 respectively,and havingAccount no.13527203018,13527203021,13527204162 and 13527204504 respectively.  The maturityamount for the said certificates/account were of Rs.7,307, Rs.5072/-, Rs.9058/- and Rs.19,885/- respectively for those certificates which includes the bonus amount and the maturity date were by 14.6.21,14.6.21,9.8.21 and 25.8.21 respectively. The contention of the complainant is supported with Xerox copies of Fixed Deposit certificates filed by her. The O.Ps have not filed their written version but participated in the hearing of this case.  It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P.Act,2019.  It is also pleaded that the O.Ps are Cooperative Societies and any dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps is required to be adjudicated under the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Society Act,2002.  It is urged that as in the said Act, there is Arbitration clause for adjudicating the dispute between the parties, the present case before this Commission is not maintainable.  It is also pleaded that the O.Ps being the Cooperative Society, the present dispute is not maintainable before this Commission.  In this connection he relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission decided on 2.9.2013 in R.P.No.4871 of 2012 in the case of M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs. The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank and another decision of Hon’ble National Commission decided on 18.11.15 in Revision Petition no.3005 of 2008, so also other decisions of Hon’ble National Commission as well asother decisions. In short, it isstatedby him that the present dispute is between the complainant and the CooperativeSociety, the O.Ps and the complainant being one of the member of the said Society, the present dispute is to

be decided under the said Cooperative Societies Act and not before this  Commission as Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint.  In contra,learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, 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.  He also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021SC,70in 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. The complainant also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022)6 SCC,496 in the case of VodaPhone, 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 relied upon by the O.Ps.

 In view of the decisions as relied upon by the complainant, it is held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act,2002 this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the complainant.  So also it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if there is dispute against the Cooperative Societies, the complainant can approach the Consumer Commission for redressal of her grievances.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court by interpreting Sec-100 of C.P.Act,2019 has passed such judgment.  Hence, the present case is very well maintainable before this Commission. 

 It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased four number of Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Ps having different account numbers on payment of Rs,.27,171/- in total.  The maturity date of the said certificates/bonds are clearly mentioned in the said certificate having account number.  After 36 months, of purchasing the certificates, the complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount.  The O.Ps had not given her the matured amount after the maturity period.  She had approached many times to get her maturity amount but the O.Ps did not give the matured amount of her certificate having specific account number.  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.  Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as has 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.  Hence, it is so ordered;

Pointsno.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  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.46,480/- towards the four number of Fixed Deposit Certificates to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity against each of the four nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation for mental agony and harassmentas well as a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the 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 5^th day of December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                     

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                              Member.

 

                                                                                     Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                         President.