West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/41/2022

SRI JIBAN BARMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

JANMEJAY GANGULY

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member

 

FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT

 

This complaint under the provisions of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party- 1. SAHARA INDIA, Station More, LIC Building, P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, Dist.: Darjeeling, Pin Cod- 734014, West Bengal, 2. SAHARA INDIA, Regional Office- Sefali Sadan, 3^rd Floor, Opposite LIC

 Building, S.F. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.: Darjeeling, Pin Cod- 734014, West Bengal, 3. AREA MANAGER, SAHARA INDIA, Sahara Sadan, Shakespeare Sarani, Near Birla Planetarium, Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin Code- 700017, 4. SAHARA INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, Sahara Shaher, Gomti Nagar, Aligarh, Lucknow, Pin Code- 226010 who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

 

The case of the complainant as per her complaint is as follows-

The complainant argued in her plaint that he took a policy/ scheme from O.P. No.1 in which he used to deposit Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only since 18/06/2019 and like this way he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,82,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only with the O.P. Company and as per the policy, the complainant was entitled to get the maturity amount within 45 (Fortry Five) days after completion of 1 (One) year but till date the complainant has not received the maturity amount.

The complainant also argued in his plaint that despite of a physically challenged person he went to meet the O.P. No.1 several times but every time the O.P. No.1 showed him a new reason for not handing over his maturity amount. The complainant also added in his plaint that he is a physically challenged person who does not have an arm and still he is working hard to earn his livelihood and he needs money for his treatment purpose because he is facing a very bad financial condition.  

 

The prayers of complainant are as follows: -

 

1. To pass an order directing the O.P. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,82,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only which is the maturity amount along with interest and maturity benefits.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) only for mental and physical harassment of the complainant.
3. To pass an order directing the O.P. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only for unfair trade practice, to the complainant.
4. To pass an order directing the O.P. No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only for litigation expenses, to the complainant.
5. Any other relief/ reliefs which the complainant is legally entitled to.

 

                                      List of Documents filed by the complainant:

                             Sl. No. - 01: Photocopy of Policy/ Scheme.         

                   Opposite Party- 1. SAHARA INDIA, Station More, LIC Building, P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, Dist.: Darjeeling, Pin Cod- 734014, West Bengal, 2. SAHARA INDIA, Regional Office- Sefali Sadan, 3^rd Floor, Opposite LIC Building, S.F. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.: Darjeeling, Pin Cod- 734014, West Bengal, who contested the case by filing W.V. and as per his W.V. the O.P.s categorically denied all the allegations made by the complainant.   

 

The O.P. No.1 and 2 categorically denied all the allegations made by the complainant in his Written Version (W.V.) and also stated that, the O.P.s are unable to make any payment since there is an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The O.P.s also stated in his W.V. that they denied to make any payment to the complainant because despite of several request after receiving the legal notice the complainant did not come to the office of the O.P. and also did not produce original Sahara Certificate, K.Y.C. before the O.P. for internal process for disbursement of payment.  

 

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

 

Points for consideration

 

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?

         

Decision with reason:-

 

All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of the complainant in full length.

The complainant resides in the jurisdiction of Bagdogra, Darjeeling and the O.P. No1 was carrying his business in Bagdogra, Darjeeling. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.

The O.P. No.1 and 2 categorically denied all the allegations made by the complainant in his Written Version (W.V.) and also stated that, the O.P.s are unable to make any payment since there is an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the O.P. No.1 and 2 neither filed any order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding this matter nor mentioned any Case Number relating with this matter. Hence, without any order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Commission cannot consider this point in favour of the O.P. No.1 and 2.

 

In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the Written Complainant has specifically corroborated the Complaint and has stated on which day he purchased the a policy/ scheme from O.P. No.1, also narrated the date of Maturity. The Complainant has also stated on which day went to the O.P from demanding the maturity amount in respect of his a policy/ scheme from O.P. No.1. The Complainant has also stated in his evidence that the Complainant went to meet the O.P. No.1 several times but the O.P. 1 did not make any payment till today.

 

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.

 

The O.P.s in its W.V submits that, this case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer as the Complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. He also argued that the O.P. is a society which was formed and duly constituted under provisions of Multi-state Co- operative Societies Act, 2002. He further argued that the Complainant was a member under the Society (O.P.) and their relation is not as a Consumer and service provider and for which if any disputes arises between the member and society it will be decided as per the provisions of Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Section 84), not as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s prayed for dismissal of this case.

 

Firstly we will consider the objection of the O.P. on the point as to whether the Complainant being a member of a society will fall within the definition Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 or not? in this regard we can refer a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it held that the disputes between Co-operative Society and its member regarding deficiency in Service can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act vide the case of The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRS (Appeal, Civil 92 of 1998) decided on 11.12.2003.

 

It was also decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender Jain Versus Alkananda Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 383 it was held that dispute raises by the members of the society can be decided by the Consumer Forum.

 

In view of those decisions and other materials on record we are of the view that the plea taken by the O.P. stands rejected and this Commission has sufficient Jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint as a Consumer dispute and thereby this case is maintainable.

 

Ld. Advocate of the O.P. in the Written Version and during argument claimed that, this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case on the grounds that, in the contract between the Complainant and the O.P. there is arbitration clause which is contained in the terms and conditions of the contract. But the said point has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Aftab Singh - Versus- Emaar MGF Land Limited & anr being Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015 Vide Order dt. 13.07.2017 wherein it was held that, an arbitration clause in the Agreements cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum notwithstanding the Amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Against that Order Civil Appeals bearing in No. 23512-23513 of 2017 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the said Appeal was dismissed on 13.02.2018. Against that Order Review Petition) being No. 2629-2630 of 2018 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on 10.12.2018 that Review Application was also dismissed. In view of the above the objection raised by the O.P. regarding the jurisdiction point is also rejected.

 

In the case in hand there is no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was not provided with Investment Certificate. It is also not denied / disputed that, the Complainant did not deposit the Sum of money to the O.P. It is also admitted fact that, the O.P. on receiving the sum of money issued deposit certificates.

 

The complainant several times tried to get her legitimate claim but the O.P.s failed to settle his said legitimate claim of its Rs. 1,82,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred)

 

So, as per the above discussion it is very much clear that there was a deficiency of service from the part of O.P.s and this Commission has no doubt that there was a deficiency of services from the part of the O.P. In the instance case, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,82,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only in total, against the O.P.s along with the interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of their maturity of the  policy/ scheme till the realization of the total amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for litigation cost and the O.P.s are also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

 

That the Consumer Case No. 41/2022 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P. (Sahara India)

Hence it is,

 

ORDERED

 

That the Consumer Case No. 41/2022 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P. No. 1 and 2 (Sahara India) and ex-parte against OP3 and 4. The O.P.s are jointly and severally liable in this case.

 

The complainant do get an award of Rs. 1,82,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only in total, which is the maturity amount along with a simple interest of @ 9% Per Annum from the date of maturity of the  policy/ scheme till the date of realization of the awarded amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for litigation cost. O.P.s are  also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account  of this Commission within 30 days from the date of this order.

 Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.