Orissa

Cuttak

CC/52/2021

Durga Charan Satapathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G Mishra

01 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

                                                            C.C.No.52/2021

                        Durga Charan Satapathy,

                       S/O:Sibaram Satapathy,

            At:Plot No.3D/1266/32,Sector-II,

           C.D.A,Cuttack..                                                           ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       The Authorized Signatory,

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.,

                  Dhanupali,Sambalpur,Odisha

 

2.      Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.,

Command Office:Sahara India Bhawan,

1,Kapoorthala Complex,Lucknow-226024.                      ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    17.03.2021

Date of Order:   01.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. G.N.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.               :                    None.     

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member                           

            Case of the complainant in short is that he purchased three bonds bearing no.963001999913, 963001999914 & 963001999915 from the O.Ps with an assurance that on maturity i.e. on 12.4.2019, the O.Ps would pay him Rs.30,000/- for each of the bond towards its  redemption value.   The complainant approached the O.P No.1 to give the maturity amount after the same is matured but the O.Ps did not take any action.  Thereafter, the complainant on 1.12.20 issued a legal notice to the O.P no.1 for payment of his matured value of the three bonds but the O.Ps did not take any step for payment of his matured amount.  Hence, the complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay the maturity amount of his bonds alongwith interest, so also prayed for direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation as well as Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed xerox copies of some documents.

2.         Both the O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested the case, hence they were set exparte.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition alongwith the documents as filed, this Commission is of a view to settle the following points in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

                        i.          Whether the case is barred by limitation ?

                        ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

                        iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps ?

                        iv.        Whether the O.Ps have adopted any unfair trade practice ?

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

point no.i.

            The complainant had purchased three bonds from the O.Ps and the date of maturity/redemption of those bonds were 12.4.2019.  The complainant had approached the O.P no.1 several times for getting her matured amount/redemption value of the bonds but the O.Ps did not pay the same.  Thereafter, the complainant had sent legal notice to the O.P no.1 on 1.12.20 for payment of his matured amount but the O.Ps did not respond to the said notice.  As per Sec-69 of C.P.Act,2019, the complaint case is required to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action.  In the present case, cause of action arose on 12.4.19, when the bonds purchased by the complainant got matured.  The present case has been filed on 17.3.21.  Hence the case has been filed within the limitation period.  The O.Ps have not filed their written version but they have taken plea of limitation during hearing of the case which is not tenable as the case has been field during the limitation period.  Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

Points no.iii & iv.

            Out of the rest points, points no.iii & iv being the pertinent points are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            The averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by her.  Both the O.Ps have not filed their written version but participated in the hearing of this case.  It is pleaded by the O.Ps that as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, the present case is not maintainable before this Commission.  But as per the provisions of C.P.Act,2019,  the complainant can approach this Commission even if there is an Arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties and there is no bar for the complainant to approach this Commission.  Hence the plea of the O.Ps is not sustainable.  The complainant had purchased three nos. of bond bearing no. no.963001999913, 963001999914 & 963001999915 on payment of Rs.3,000/- in total.  It is clearly mentioned in that certificates/bonds that the said bond would be matured on 12.4.19 and the matured value would be Rs.30,000/-  for each of the bond.  The O.Ps did not give the matured amount after the maturity period.  So the complainant approached the O.P No.1 several times to get the maturity amount but the O.Ps did not give the matured amount/redemption value of the bonds.  The complainant also had given a legal notice to the O.P no.1 on 1.12.20 for payment of the matured amount/redemption value of his bonds but that yields no result.  As such, this Commission has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the O.Ps had caused deficiency in service and had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the complainant’s maturity amount/redemption value of the bonds to him.   

Points no.ii & v.

            In view of the above finding, it is held that this case is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed exparte against the O.Ps.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable in this case.  The O.Ps are hereby directed to disburse the total maturity amount of four bonds amounting to Rs.90,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 12.4.2019 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation  cost 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 November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member.

                                                                       

                                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President