DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.07.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

The factual matrix of the case 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 Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission.

2.         The complainant is a senior citizen and at the verge of senior citizen for the savings deposited the amount as per motivation of the O.Ps to get lucrative returns of such deposits in future through their agent and advertisements. Accordingly, the complainant accepting the said offer aiming and basing on the future necessities like higher education for the children, their marriage and medical necessities at the old ages, deposited the amount for the period of 168 months/14 years under a Scheme: Fully paid up SAHARA 14 (20 Bonds- Rupees one thousand for each bond) on the date of mentioned blow at the Authorized centre at the office of O.P.No.2  and the O.Ps are also declared certain conditions for entitled of the benefits and the detailed certificates are here under:  

When the complainant demanded to refund the matured amount on said deposit as mentioned in Table-1 on 18.03.2014, the O.P.No.2 has postponed and said to 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 giving 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 some time through her 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 essence of an offer by the company providing to interest 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 consisted of the fact that the company or firms is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and the depositor is clearly a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the matured amount of Rs.1,40,000/ with 9% interest per annum, Compensation of Rs.37,000/-, litigation Cost of Rs.43,600/-  in the best interest of justice.

3.         The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.

4.         The O.P.No.2 filed written objection under section 69 of C.P.Act, 2019. Sri Bhagaban Dora complainant has filed a complaint before above said learned commission for the maturity payment without submitting of required documents before his concerned branch office. The claim of the complainant is based on false grounds. The complainant has opened account on 18.03.2000 and matured dated 18.03.2014 vide certificate No. 38360372044 under Sahara 14 Scheme of Rs.20,000/- and filed after competition of 9 years one month 16 days the litigation before learned Commission dated 02.05.2023. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen and also mentioned specific land mark judgment by Supreme Court of India on limitation. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint and imposed heavy cost for mislead the learned Commission and violate of soul content of Section 69 Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5.         On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for the complainant was present. The Commission heard argument from him at length and perused the complaint petition,  written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- on dated 18.03.2000 and entitled to receive the Rs.1,40,000/- on 18.03.2014 from the O.Ps. On considering the objection of the OP under Sec.69 of the Act, 2019, the Commission relied upon the citation wherein law is well established on the principle of ‘continuous or recurring cause of action laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Versus the Central Bank of India and another, in Civil Appeal No. 2514/2020 and C.A.No. 2515/2020 where the Hon’ble Court held that, the cause of action is continuous as long as the amount is not refunded. The said principle of law is applicable in the present case. Hence the present complaint is in time as the opposite parties have not refunded the matured amount till filling of the case.

Further, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant into 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. The objection of O.Ps is that the complainant cannot ignore the arbitration clause to settle the dispute between the parties. The objection of O.Ps is that the complainant cannot ignore the arbitration clause to settle the dispute between the parties. But in the instant case the O.Ps did not submit any supportive document regarding pending of case before any arbitrator or agreement paper before the Commission. The citations relied upon by the O.Ps are not applicable in the present case. The complainant can file the C.C. as per precedent. Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer in relation to a certain deficiency of service there the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency constituted under the Consumer Protection Act as reported in the case of M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited v. Aftab Singh in R.P.No. 2629-2630 of 2018 in C.A. No. 23512-23513 of 2017 held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against the O.P no.2 and dismissed against OP No.1. The Opposite Party no.2 is directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1 40 000/- only along with 9% interest per annum to the complainant together with pay litigation cost of Rs.10 000/- within 45 days from receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 10.02.2023 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for realization of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.

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 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 23.07.2024.