Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.:28/2022
1. Shri Ashok Kumar s/o Late Shri Lakhi Ram
2. Daya Rani w/o Shri Ashok Kumar
Both resident of 2726-A, Gali Arya Samaj,
Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006
3. Deepak s/o Shri Ashok Kumar
4. Pradeep Kumar s/o Shri Ashok Kumar
Both resident of 2771, 3rd floor, Gali Arya Samaj,
Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006 ...Complainants
Versus
OP1: Shri Subrata Roy Sahara
Command Office- Sahara India Pariwar
Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala
Complex, Ali Ganj, Lucknow, 226024.
OP2: Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.
through its Branch Manager
Shri Umesh Kumar, (Franchise Office)
H-117 Main Pusta Road, West Karawal Nagar
East Delhi Som Bazar, Delhi-110094
OP3: Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.
Registered Office: Mangal Jyoti, 101,
227/2 AJC Bose Road,West Bengal-700020,
through its Secretary ...Opposite Parties
Date of filing: 22.02.2022
Order Reserved on: 02.01.2023
Date of Order: 21.01.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh
ORDER
1. It is a joint complaint by complainant nos.1 to 4 against OPs (OP1 to OP3), of allegations of deficiency of services that OPs took the amount from the complainant by way of fixed deposit receipts but on maturity the amount of FDRs were not returned, which is also an unfair trade practice.
2. The complaint in its paragraph 2 narrates that the OP2 allured the complainant and his other family’s members (i.e. the other complainants) and they agreed to invest money in OPs fixed deposit scheme. The paragraph no. 2 of the complaint further narrates the names of respective complainants, the dates of amount of deposit, the due/maturity dates and amount payable on maturity, apart from details of FDRs issued by the OP2. Broadly, there are two dates of deposits viz. 29.06.2019 and 10.06.2019 and correspondingly the maturity dates are 29.06.2021 and 10.06.2021. The complaint is accompanying photocopy of all the fixed deposit receipts enumerated in paragraph no. 2 of the complaint.
The complainant approached the OP for release of maturity amount of FDRs, they also deposited documents with their legal office, they met Mr. Umesh Kumar, Manager of OP2, however, the matter was lingered on the one pretext or the other, even no explanation was given by them for not releasing the amount of FDRs. It was the duty of OPs to release the amount forthwith on maturity but they are still not ready to release the amount, it amounts to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant seeks amount of the FDRs along with interest apart from additional interest of 18% p.a. for causing delay and also compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainants. All the complainants are author of the complaint.
3. Notice on complaint was sent to all the OP1,OP2 and OP3, however, despite service of notices on OPs on 07.03.2022, neither they had appeared nor they filed the reply within period prescribed, thus by proceeding dated 25.05.2022 right to file the reply was closed. On subsequent date of 27.07.2022, all of them were proceeded ex-parte for want of appearance.
4. The complainants were given option to lead evidence, Complainant no. 1 Shri Ashok Kumar and complainant no. 2 Shri Pardeep Kumar filed their evidence by way of affidavits, the deposition in the affidavits is on the line of the complaint and documents of FDRs comprising of FDRs, membership numbers, extra benefit coupon.
5. At the stage of arguments, written argument as well as oral submissions were made by explaining that by virtue of FDRs in favour of complainants, they are creditors and OPs are debtors. It was inquired during argument about the total amount deposited as well as the total amount due being not mentioned in the pleading or subsequently. It was explained that individual items of FDRs and its maturity was mentioned instead of gross total. Moreover, it was also inquired as to how OP1 is presently liable, however, it was conceded that FDRs issued were by the OP2 and OP3 in favour of complainant, the complainant are consumer since amount has not been returned on maturity by OP2 and OP3 and OP1 is associated with OP2 and OP3.
6.1 The case of complainants is considered in view of the documentary record as well as the contentions uttered orally.
At the outset, nowhere it has been explained as to how OP1 was personally involved or liable, there is no averments in the complaint or in the evidence or otherwise any satisfactory explanation in the oral submission, therefore, when the FDRs were issued by Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited (viz. OP1 and OP2), there was no fact that OP1 is involved his personal capacity, thus OP1 is not a proper and necessary party to complaint. Therefore, for want of any allegation against OP1, consequently his name is deleted from the array of parties.
6.2. With regard to other un-rebutted allegations by complainants they had deposited the amount in the form of FDRs, which were issued by OP2 and OP3 for a specific period of 24 months and FDRs amount was to be released on maturity date of 29.06.2021 and 10.06.2021, which OP2 and OP3 failed to release despite requests, visits and legal notice. It amounts to not a fair practice on part of OP2 and OP3 as well as there is deficiency of services by OP2 and OP3. The deposit was strictly for period of 24 months. It is in evidence, the amount was deposited by way of 10 FDRs of Rs. 2,89,000/- by complainant no. 1 Shri Ashok Kumar and its maturity amount was Rs.3,51,306/-. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- was deposited by way of two FDRs by complainant no. 2 Smt. Daya Rani, its maturity amount was Rs. 1,23,992/-. The complainant no. 3, Shri Deepak had deposited Rs. 31,000/- by single FDR and its maturity amount was Rs. 37,684/- and complainant no. 4, Shri Deepak Kumar also deposited Rs. 31,000/- a single FDR, its maturity value was Rs. 37,648/-.
The complainants have proved their complaint, they are entitled for release of their amount of FDRs on its maturity [viz. Rs.3,51,306/- in respect of Shri Ashok Kumar, Rs. 1,23,992/- in respect of Smt. Daya Rani, Rs. 37,684/- in respect of Shri Deepak and Rs. 37,684/- in respect of Shri Pardeep Kumar] against OP2 and OP3 .
6.3. The complainant claims additional interest of 18% p.a. on ground of delay in release of amount, however, reasons for rate of interest of 18% p.a. are not explained. The FDRs mentions name of depositor, the amount deposited and its maturity amount. On the basis of amount deposited & maturity value, the rate of interest was calculated, it comes to rate of 10.78% pa. Therefore, in order to meet both ends of justice, interest at the same rate of 10.78% p.a. would meet the ends of justice and complainants are held entitled for the same for rate of interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization in their favour and against OP2 and OP3. There is also claim of compensation on account of harassment, mental pain, agony etc. on account of delay, thus, looking to the circumstances as well as award of interest, in aforementioned conclusions, claim for further compensation is declined. The complainants also requests for cost of litigation, which are justified since complainants have to file complaint after advance legal notice, thus costs are quantified as Rs.5,000/- in favour of complainants and against the OP2 and OP3.
7. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainants and against OP1 and OP2 while directing the OP1 and OP2 to pay maturity amount of FDRs amount of Rs.3,51,306/- to Shri Ashok Kumar, Rs. 1,23,992/- to Smt. Daya Rani, Rs. 37,684/- to Shri Deepak and Rs. 37,684/- to Shri Pardeep Kumar, along-with interest @ 10.78% pa from the date of filing of complaint till its realization in their favour and against OP2 and OP3, apart from costs of Rs.5,000/- in favour of complainants and against the OP2 and OP3.
8. Copy of this sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per regulations.
9: Announced on this 21st day of January, 2023 [ माघ 1, साका 1944].
25.02.2023
CC No.-28/2022
Present: Shri Rakesh Srivastav, Advocate with complainant no.1
This file is taken up today on the eve of filing of the execution petition and while going through the order dated 21.01.2023 filed with that execution petition, a clerical/ accidental typographical error is noticed that para no. 7/ second line for words OP2 and OP3 it was typed as OP1 and OP2 at two places, whereas in rest of the para no. 7 as well as in other paragraphs of the final order, the parties are referred correctly. Therefore, it needs to be corrected and it stands corrected, consequently, the first two lines of para no. 7 are repeated hereunder as to highlight OP2 and OP3 appropriately:-
7. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainants and against OP2 and OP3 while directing the OP2 and OP3 to pay maturity amount of FDRs
The copy of this order be sent to the parties for up-to-date information and one copy be placed in the execution petition being considered separately.
