Orissa

Cuttak

CC/42/2022

Sarat Chandra Satapathy - 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.42/2022

 

Sarat Chandra Satapathy,

S/O:Nimain Charan Satapathy,

At:Beleswar New Colony,

Near Railway Level Crossing,

P.O:Nuabazar,Cuttack Sadar,

Cuttack Nayabazar,Cuttack Town,

Distg:Cuttack-753004.                                     ... 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,Uttar Pradesh.

 

5.       The Authorized Person,

           Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          (Sahara India), Regd. Office: Mangal Jyoti,

          101,227/2 AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,

          West Bengal-700020.

 

6.       The Authorized Person,

           Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

          (Sahara India), Regd. Office 195, Zone-1, Infront of D.B.Mall,

           M.P.Nagar,Bhopal,Madhypradesh-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:     11.03.2022

Date of Order:    03.07.2023

 

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

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                                         

          The case of the complainant in short is that he had invested money by purchasing three nos. of  Fixed Deposit Certificates such as certificate bearing A/c. No.813524000812 on payment of Rs.5,500/- on 28.2.2014 under “Sahara Shop East” scheme, No.13526803532 on payment of Rs.15,654/- on 30.12.2017 under “Super BB” scheme, No.13527404158 on payment of Rs.34,141/- on 29.6.2018 under UNIQUE MIS” scheme, as well as two nos. of monthly scheme under “Sahara S.Bhavishya” having A/c. No.13523502122 on payment of monthlyRs.500/-  for 180 months from 26.5.2011 and A/c. No.13523711988on payment of monthlyRs.600/-  for 180 months from 31.12.2011 from the O.Ps.The maturity period for the said Fixed Deposit Certificates were mentioned against each of the certificates.  On maturity, he was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.12,947/- on 28.2.2020 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c. No.813524000812, Rs.24,046/- on 30.12.2020 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c. No.13526803532, Rs.34,141/- on 29.6.2021 on the Fixed Deposit Certificate having A/c. No.13527404158 alongwith bonus amount of Rs.3060/-,  Rs.95,000/- on 26.5.2020 prematurely, which is admissible as 10 years elapsed on the monthly scheme having A/c.  No.13523502122 and Rs.1,14,000/- on 31.12.2021 prematurely, which is admissible as 10 years elapsed on the monthly scheme having A/c.No.13523711988.He was entitled to get maturity amountinthree Fixed Deposit Certificates as well as two nos. of monthly scheme calculated as Rs.2,79,569/- with a sum of Rs.3060/- towards the extra benefit in total Rs.2,83,194/-.   Details of scheme and A/c particular, opening date of A/c., maturity date, deposit amount and maturity amount has been reflected in Annexure-2 as filed by the complainant.   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.2,79,569/- 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 his litigation expenses.

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove his case as well as evidence on affidavit, further affidavit by clarifying the calculation of maturity amount  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 have participated in the hearing of the case and argued that they 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. The learned counsel for the O.Ps relied upon some decisions of Hon’ble National Commission as well as of Hon’ble High Court.  In contrary,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.  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 his complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by him.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased three numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates of different scheme from the O.Ps as well as invested money in monthly schemes of the O.Ps as per Annexure-2.  The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of Fixed Deposit certificates as well as monthly deposit particulars in case of monthly scheme as filed by him.

It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased three nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Psas well as he had deposited regularly required amount as per the scheme in the monthly scheme of the O.Ps. In total the complainant had paid Rs.1,60,495/-to the O.Ps.  The maturity date of the said Fixed Deposit certificates/bonds was clearly mentioned as against each of the said certificates, which were due on the datesmentioned in the certificates.   In case of the monthly scheme, the complainant wanted for release of the maturity amount after lapse of 10 years, which is admissible under that scheme.    The O.Ps had not given the complainant the matured amount of Fixed Deposit Certificates after the maturity period as well as maturity amount of the monthly scheme on his request.  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 as well as of maturity amount of monthly scheme, 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 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 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 well as of monthly deposit scheme as claimed by him.  The complainant has filed calculation sheet indicating maturity amount therein, as per Annexure-2.  The complainant has filed further affidavit by clarifying the calculation made in Annexure-2.  The calculation as made in Annexure-2 is found to be correct being not controverted.  It reveals from the Annexure-2 that the complainant was entitled to get total amount of Rs.2,83,194/- towards the maturity amount of the three nos. of fixed deposit certificates which includes extra benefit of Rs.3060/-  towards the certificate having A/c. No.13527404158 as well as maturity amount of two nos. of A/c of the monthly scheme.    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.Rs.2,83,194/-  of the thee nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates as well as maturity  amounttowards the two nos. of A/c in the monthly scheme as per the Annexure-2, mentioned against each of the A/c No. to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity of each of the said certificates 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.