(Through Authorised Consumer Voluntary
Organisation VEDIC, Berhampur
for the Complainant)
(Through NONE appears for the
Opposite party No. 1 & 2)
Smt. Saritri Pattnaik, Member (W) :
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2.The fact of the case as averred by the complainant is that, the complainant is a woman and for the savings deposited the amount as per motivation of the Opposite parties to get lucrative returns of such deposits in future through their agent and advertisements. Accordingly the complainant accepting the said offer deposited the amount for the period of 96 months under a scheme: Sahara E Shine on different dates as mentioned below in Table-1 at authorized center i.e. at opposite party No.2 and the O.Ps also declared that this shall bear fixed interest as per rules of the society and deposits can be withdrawal within one month of matured period.
T A B L E -1
Date | Account No. | Deposited amount (in Rs) | Maturity amount | Maturity date. |
15.03.2012 | 25394200810 | 17000.00 | 44404.00 | 15.03.2020 |
15.03.2012 | 25394200809 | 17000.00 | 44404.00 | 15.03.2020 |
15.03.2012 | 25394200808 | 17000.00 | 44404.00 | 15.03.2020 |
Total | 3 nos A/c | 51000.00 | 133212.00 | |
As per terms and conditions of the above scheme, both of the O.Ps are liable to pay the maturity amount on the date fixed as mentioned in Annexure A series. When the complainant demanded to refund the matured amount on said deposit as mentioned in Table-1 sometime after 15th March 2020 and thereafter November 2020, January 2021 visited the office of the O.P.No.2 asked the complainant to come after 30 to 35 days and when the complainant approached on lapse of said period of 35 days, the O.P.No.2 denied to give the said matured amount instantly. Thereafter till date the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 for refund of the matured amount with delayed interest in regular interval in person and sometime through the friends and relatives but O.P. No.2 paid deaf ear. Law is well settled that, when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer to the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their funds with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the facts that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and the depositor is clearly a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and in the event of non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by financial institution constitutes deficiency in service. By these acts of both the O.Ps, the complainant facing untoward problems to meet the family needs in time. The acts of the Opposite Parties are deficient in services and the O.P:s are doing unfair trade practices, restrictive trade practices and misleads the complainant while motivating in the initial period i.e. prior to fix deposit under above scheme. To redress the grievances, the complainant already incurred huge amounting of Rs.6500/- since the dates of maturity i.e. 15.03.2020 and thereafter till date facing irreparable agonies financially, mentally, physically and also facing embarrassing situation in her family by not fulfilling the commitments given to the family members and also not able to do her part of duty towards the family properly. To meet the above needs of family in constraint, the complainant made some hand loan from her relatives. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the entire matured amount of Rs.1,33,212.00 with delayed interest @18% per annum, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.32,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued to the O.Ps. Neither the O.Ps appeared nor filed any written version, hence the O.Ps were declared exparte on 12.12.2022.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the Authorised Representative for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.51,000/- on dated 15.03.2012 and entitled to receive Rs.1,33,212/- after 15.03.2020 from the O.Ps. Though notice was sent by this Ld. District CDR Forum/Commission, Ganjam Berhampur for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.
Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
5. On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,33,212.00 only to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10000/- for compensation along with Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(SMT. SARITRI PATTNAIK)
MEMBER (W)
(SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI)
MEMBER
PRONOUNCED ON: 20.02.2023.
