This Case was heard in the Ld. Lower Forum (DCDRF, Jalpaiguri) being Case No. EA/06/2020 in which W/A was issued against the Revisionist, i.e. BM, Sahara India Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jalpaiguri (henceforth, to be referred as SICCS Ltd.) vide order no. 24 and subsequent orders for its E.R., etc. while the judgement was passed on 23/6/2022 by the then President of the Ld. Lower Forum (DCDRF, Jalpaiguri) who is now the Presiding Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench. Hence, for the sake of natural justice he is not to hear the same Case which came to the State Forum (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench) where he is the Presiding Member.  Therefore, a request was made to the Hon’ble President of the WBSCDRC, Kolkata vide this Office No.89/SCB/3J-3/2023 dated 20/2/2023 requesting to constitute a Single Bench and the Hon’ble President, WBSCDRC, Kolkata vide his 768(25)/SC/2J-14/08 (Vol. I) dated 10/05/2023, was kind enough to have given his kind approval/permission to form/constitute the Single Bench. Accordingly, Single Bench was constituted with the undersigned as Presiding Member.

 The original Case no. CC/56/2017 (Mrinal Kanti Roy) vs. BM, SICCS Ltd. where the Ld. President and others passed final order dated 21/2/2018 stating interalia the payment of Rs. 1,16,300/- as maturity value of the 7 (seven) Fixed Deposit Receipts

(Henceforth, to be referred as FDRs), plus Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and plus Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as cost totaling to Rs.1,68,300/- (Rupees one lakh sixty-eight thousand three hundred) only, in the original CC Case being no.CC/56/2017.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied specially against the W/A in connection with W/A/2020, the BM, SICCS Ltd. approached to this Siliguri Circuit Bench with the request to revise the order of the Ld. Lower Forum dated 21/2/2018 and with the request to issue a Stay Order against W/A in connection with EA/06/2020. Being the  first Appeal vide RP/2/2022 on the same issues.

The Case in brief is that one Shri Mrinal Kanti Roy has filed a Consumer Case in the Ld. Jalpaiguri District Forum being Case No. CC/56/2017 for not receiving the maturity value of the 7 (seven) FDRs (Rs.15000 x 6 = Rs.90000/- + Rs.10000 x 1 totaling Rs.100000/- (one lakh) only on 31/8/2015 (period of investment for 18 months) The date of maturity was fixed on 28/2/2017. The Respondent/OP did not get the maturity amount of Rs.1,16,300/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand three hundred) only against the above-mentioned 7(seven) Certificates. But the BM, SICCS Ltd. instead of making payment in full on maturity, harassing the DHR/Respondent/Complainant citing some lame excuses. The DHR/Respondents/Complainants referred the matter to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and & FBP for redressal of his grievances, but without any fruitful result. That is why he has preferred the CC Case being no. 56/2017 seeking the redressal of his grievances including receiving the full maturity value of the FDRs.

The Ld. District Lower Forum, Jalpaiguri finally passed an order directing the Revisionist/Appellant/OP to pay Rs.1,16,300/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand

three hundred) only as maturity value along with Cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service dated 21/02/2018. The Revisionist/Appellant/OP, BM, Sahara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (SICCSL) did not take necessary steps to pay the dues for compliance of the order of the Ld. Lower Forum dated 21/02/2018.

Meanwhile, the original Complainant (Mrinal Kanti Roy) expired on 10/1/2018 vide KMC Death Certificate no. 0043415 dated 08/5/2018 (Annexure E) and his legal heirs, Smt. Smita Roy & 2 Ors. filed an Execution Case being no. EA/06/2020 for execution of the above order of the Ld. Lower Forum, Jalpaiguri for non-compliance of Order dated 21/2/2018 of DCDRF, Jalpaiguri in connection with the CC Case No. 56/2017. The Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri issued a warrant of arrest through IC, Kotowali PS, District – Jalpaiguri for E/R vide its order no. 25 dated 23/6/2022 in connection with Execution Case no. EA/06/2020.

Subsequently, SICCSL approached to the Siliguri Circuit Bench with revision petition being no. RP/2/2022 against the DHR/Respondents/Complainants citing an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court alleging that an embargo over the payment of not exceeding Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only. So, the Revisionist (BM, SICCSL) could not pay more than Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the DHR /Respondent/Complainant and for that reason, the BM, SICCSL could not be able to pay the whole amount. But on request the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Revisionist could not produce any such order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the argument/WNA.

                                                                  Decisions with Reasons

It is undisputed that the Revisionist/Appellant never denies that the Respondents/Complainants owe the maturity value of the 7 (seven) FDRs amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, the maturity value of those FDRs being Rs.1,16,300/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand three hundred) only on 28/02/2017. Secondly, the Revisionist could not show any comprehensive order including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which prevents the Revisionist to make such full payment exceeding Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only on maturity. It is a very tragic incident that the original depositor, Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy did not get a full of his legitimate claims/dues during his life time and the legal heirs of the deceased are now waiting to get the justice. Generally, customers are not supposed to come to the Consumer Forum to get their legitimate claims/dues of their investment unless and until they are paid their legitimate claims/dues on proper time. The credibility/reliability of SICCSL raised questions regarding their goodwill/good mission for making payment of such legitimate claims/dues on due date without any harassment and time killing.

The Revisionist could not dispute regarding the investment 7 (seven) Fixed Deposits and he also admitted that the payment could not be done due to some embargo of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but at the same they could not furnish any such order to that effect in the Commission. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs. Union of India and Ors. in IA No.50308 of 2023 in writ petition (C 191 of 2022) did not mention any type of embargo or stay order. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Revisionist argued that they are ready to pay the legitimate claims/dues through PORTAL like other investors of SICCSL. But the DHR/Respondents/Complainants are not willing to opt for mode of payment through PORTAL, because it may cause indefinite delay in getting their payment of claims/dues and a substantial time has elapsed from the date of maturity till date and they are urgently in need of money. It is undisputed that the original petitioner (Mrinal Kanti Roy since deceased) was a consumer since he had purchased FD Certificates by investing Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only at a time with expectation to get sum return out of his investment. It is very sad that the original investor Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy could not get his legitimate dues during his life time due to some misconception/misinterpretation. The legal heirs of the deceased (Mrinal Kanti Roy) authorized one Shri Bimal Kanti Roy who is personally present today to pursue and represent the Case. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Revisionist informed that they are not against the payment, but payment should be made by opting PORTAL which the representative of the DHR/Respondent/Complainant vehemently objected stating that more than 6 years (almost 7 years) have passed since the date of maturity and they are badly need of money. Moreover, the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court never prevents/debars or stays the proceedings of payment exceeding Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only. In view of the above, it can be concluded beyond doubt that the Revisionist/Appellant failed to prove his Case.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instant Case be and same has failed on contest with cost.

The Revisionist/Appellant/OP is directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,16,300/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand three hundred) only along with 9% Simple

Interest per annum to the Respondents/Complainants (legal heirs/ successors of the original Complainant/Sri Mrinal Kanti Roy) from the date of maturity till the date of disbursement minus the amount which the original Complainant (Mrinal Kanti Roy, since deceased) or his legal heirs/successors received, if any, from SICCSL, Jalpaiguri in connection with maturity of the above 7 (seven) FDRs. It is also directed to pay a sum or Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation  towards the mental pain, agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices to the Complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as cost.

The above order should be complied with within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of this order failing which the entire amount shall attract a Simple Interest @ 9% per annum till the date of realization.

Thus, the Stay Order, if any, in connection with execution Case no. EA/06/2020 is hereby vacated.

Send the copies of the judgement to all the parties concerned free of cost.

Send the copy of the judgement to the Ld. Lower Forum (Jalpaiguri, D.C.D.R.C.) early.

The Case is hereby disposed of.