Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant .. Subhasis Roy
For OP/OPs .. Safikul Alam
Date of Filing : 03.07.2018
Date of Disposal : 26.04.2019
: JUDGMENT & ORDER dtd. 26.04.2019 :
Non-payment of the maturity value of one investment plan (R.D. Scheme) of the depositor herein, the complainant has obliged him to lodge this complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for redressal.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant had one R.D. Scheme bearing A/C. No. 60213401124 with the OP No. 1 for the period from 30.04.2011 to 30.04.2016, i.e., for 5 years. During the period according to the scheme, the complainant had deposited in total Rs. 27,000/- started on and from 30.04.2011. According to the condition of the R.D. Scheme, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the total deposited money of Rs. 27,000/- + up to date interest as per norms of the OPs. The complainant has made claim as per rule but no payment has been made by the OPs. The complainant in his averment had prayed for directing the OPs to refund of Rs. 27,000/- + up to date interest as per norms of the OPs, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for unfair trade practice, mental pain and agony and cost of the suit.
Upon notice, the OP No. 2 appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and hence not maintainable as there was no cause of action to file the instant case and also denied the fact of unfair trade practice. The OP further stated that policies are regulated as per the terms and conditions and the complainant failed to comply his part of obligation of the terms and condition stipulated under Sahara M Benefit Scheme and therefore the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The OPs further submitted that the payment could not be made due to dispute with SEBI the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court imposed embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of Companies on 21.11.2013 subsequently another petition filed by the Sahara Group of Companies to lift the embargo but the same was rejected. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops as alleged by the complainant.
Points for discussion
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the OP liable for deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
After due consideration, of the materials on record i.e., the petition of complaint, the written version, documents filed by the OPs and all other relevant materials on record and after consideration of oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant, we find that admittedly the complainant maintains one R.D. Scheme bearing A/C. No. 60213401124 with the OP No. 1 for the period from 30.04.2011 to 30.04.2016, i.e., for 5 years. During the period according to the scheme, the complainant had deposited in total a sum of Rs. 27,000/- started on and from 30.04.2011. According to the condition of the R.D. Scheme, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the total deposited money of Rs. 27,000/- + up to date interest as per norms of the OP. Admittedly this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this case. Admittedly the case has been filed within the period of limitation of two years. Therefore, we find and hold that the case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer under the OP Company.
The specific contention of the OPs, due to case No.412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9812 2011 of SEBI, presently under jurisdiction of the Apex Court the payment has remained stopped temporarily.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is not responsible for the case pending in the Apex court as referred. Moreover, even after the embargo has been imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the OP did not hesitate to continue/carry/raise funds for new investment plan (R.D. Scheme) under Sahara M Benefit Scheme. The instant R.D. Scheme was opened on 30.04.2011 and continued till date. Therefore it is a clear case of unfair trade practice committed by the OPs.
The OP stated in its written version, that the complainant violated the terms and condition stipulated under Sahara M Benefit Scheme. On argument the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant pointed out the clause contained in the terms & conditions of the pass book issued by Sahara M Benefit which is written hereunder:-
“II) Maturity payment of Irregular accounts
The account wherein the Member Account Holder has not continued the account regularly, as specified in clause (i) above, would be treated as irregular Account. The Society will charge liquidated damages on these irregular accounts on account of non receipt of deposit instalments in time and the resultant loss of investment opportunity, etc. The liquidated damages would be deducted from or adjusted against the interest amount payable to the Member Account Holder. No deduction of any kind shall be made from the principal amount deposited by the Member Account Holder. Therefore, at the time of maturity, the payment in these accounts shall be made with interest as per the chart available at the Authorised Centers of the Society’s / its Agent’s Authorised Center.”
On perusal of the above referred clause it is crystal clear that the complainant did not violate any terms & conditions as alleged by the OPs.
From the above discussion it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the deposit with the OP. It is the deficiency in service of the OP not to make payment of the maturity amount in time. The complainant is not responsible for the internal disturbance of the OP Company.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D,
That the OPs are hereby directed to refund of Rs. 27,000/- + up-to-date interest to the complainant as per norms of the OPs within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. shall be imposed on the total amount up to the date of this order. A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice is to be paid to the complainant by the OPs within 30 days from the date of this order.
The case be and the same succeeds on contest against the OPs.
Let a plain copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties forthwith free of cost.
