The Complainant has filed this case against the O.P. under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and praying for the following Order / Relief namely:-
- Direction against the O.P. to pay the Complainant her legitimately receivable fixed deposit amount to the tune of Rs. 95366/- + Rs 95366/- = Rs 190732/- ( Rupees One Lack Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Two Only) together with up-to-date interest till the date of recovery.
ii) Direction against the O.P. to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant upon the amount stated above till the date of its recovery.
iii) Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards compensation against the constant tremendous mental stress and agony caused to the Complainant and her family members.
iv) Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards litigation cost.
v) Direction against the O.P. to pay the complainant a total amount of Rs 190732/- + Rs 50000/- + Rs 50000/- = 290732/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Two Only)
The case of the complainant in brief is that she invested a sum amounting to the tune of Rs 82,000/- only on 19/06/2018 for a period of 18 months with the O.P./ she was provided a “ Deposit Certificate” bearing in No 925005759541 for Rs. 82,000/- on 19/06/2018. It’s maturity date was on 19/12/2019, maturity amount Rs 95366/-. The Complainant fixed deposited another sum amounting to the tune of Rs 82,000/- only on 19/06/2018, the O.P. issued Deposit Certificate Bearing No. 925005759542 for Rs. 82,000/- ,for a period of 18 months and its maturity value was of Rs. 95366/-, date of maturity was on 19/12/2019. The O.P. also issued fixed deposit certificate bearing in No 925005759542 on 19/06/2018.
It has also been stated that, after maturity date of those two certificates the Complainant approached the O.P. a number of times for release the maturity amount but the O.P. failed to do so. It has also been stated that, the Complainant sent letter dated 12/07/2020 to the O.P. requesting to payment of the matured deposited amount together with up-to-date interest but the O.P. despite receiving that letter remained silent and deliberately ignored to settle the Complainant’s legitimate claims / the O.P. is liable to pay the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit Certificate along with interest till the date of realization.
In support of the case the Complainant has annexed the following documents:-
- Photocopy of Fixed Deposit Certificates bearing Certificate No. 925005759541 for Rs. 82,000/ (Rupees Eighty-Two Thousand) only, dated 19/06/2018, issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant.
- Photocopy of Fixed Deposit Certificates bearing Certificate No. 925005759542 for Rs. 82,000/ (Rupees Eighty-Two Thousand) only, dated 19/06/2018, issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant.
- Photocopy of the letter dated 12/07/2020 issued by the complainant ( by hand) in favour of the Branch Manager of the opposite party.
Notice was duly served upon the O.P. On receipt of Notice the O.P. appears through its Ld. Advocate, filed Written Version, and denied all the material allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. has claimed that, the O.P. is a society and the Complainant was a member under the O.P. and thereby this case is not maintainable in its present form & prayer. It has also been stated in the Written Version that, the relation between the Complainant and the O.P. is that of a member & society not of a Consumer and Service Provider and therefore, for any dispute between the society and member, Consumer Complaint is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Consumer Commission. It has also been stated in the Written Version of the O.P. that, since the Complainant was a member of O.P. society as such, Consumer Complainant is not maintainable in the face of provisions of section 84 of the Multi-State-Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and therefore this Consumer Complainant is not maintainable as there is provisions of arbitration by virtue of that dispute may be settled. By filing Written Version the O.P. praying for dismissal of this case.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side 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
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019 ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?
Decision with reasons:-
All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.
In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the Written Deposition the Complainant has specifically corroborated the Complaint and has stated on which day she purchased the Fixed Deposit Certificate from the O.P., also narrated the date of Maturity. The Complainant has also stated on which day she went to the O.P. for demanding the maturity amount in respect of her Fixed Deposit Certificates. The Complainant has also stated in her evidence that she sent written letter to the O.P. on 19/12/2019 for settlement of her claim but the O.P. paid no heed and make no 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.
Ld. Advocate of the O.P. during argument 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. praying for dismissal of this case.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant and other materials on record it reveals that, this Commission gave opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions. In view of that the Complainant has adduced evidence in the form of an Affidavit. But the O.P. to falsify the case of the Complainant did not adduce any evidence in support of their Written Version.
We have heard, the Ld. Advocate of the parties, have gone through the plaint, Written Version, Brief Notes of Argument very carefully.
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 MGFLand 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 Certificates . 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 twodeposit certificates.
It is also admitted fact that, the maturity period of those two Certificates has already been completed. From those two Investment Certificates it is found that, the Complainant invested money with the O.P. under the belief that, she will get return thereof by the way of interest, which will be payable to the Complainant by the maturity dates which are mentioned in the Investment Certificates. But the O.P. did not pay any farthing to the Complainant even long after maturity period of those two Investment Certificates. Even on several occasions the Complainant requested the O.P. for settlement of that matter, even she sent letter to the O.P. in writing requesting for making payment of maturity amount along with interest but the O.P. did not pay any amount of money to the Complainant. By not making payment of maturity amount, even after utilizing the money deposited by the Complainant, the O.P. is deficient in providing service and also indulges unfair trade practice and the same caused mental pain, agony, financial loss to the Complainant.
Considering all we are of the view that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P.
Hence, it is therefore,
O R D E R E D
That, the instant Consumer Case being in No. 47/2022 is hereby allowed in part on contest. The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,90,732 (Rupees One Lac Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Two Only) towards legitimately receivable fixed deposit maturity amount.
The O.P. is also directed to pay the Complainant interest @ 9 % per annum with effect from 19/12/2019 till making payment of the entire amount.
The O.P. is also directed to pay the Complainant litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. The OP is directed to pay the above stated amount within 30 days from this day failing which the Complainant is at liberty to take steps against the OP as per law.
Let a copy of this order be given to parties free of cost.
