Orissa

Cuttak

CC/181/2022

Ahalya Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Person,M/s Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

B K Choudhury & associates

04 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.181/2022

             Ahalya Patra,

                                 W/o: Jogendra Patra,

                                 At:Manikunda,P.O:Uradha,Dist:Cuttack.                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.       The Authorized Person,

M/s. Sahara India,Plot No.25,2^nd Floor,

Chintamaniswar Square,Cuttack Road,

Bhubaneswar

 

2.       The General Manager,

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited,

Sahara India Bhawan,Kapoorthala Complex,

                      Aliganj,Lucknow-226024.                                                            ...Opp.Parties

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:     08.09.2022

Date of Order:    04.11.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. B.K.Choudhury,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.              :           Mr. M.P.Singh,Advocate.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                          

          The case of the complainant in short is that she being an account holder of O.Ps having A/c. No.13605102978 had invested money in a monthly scheme of O.Ps namely “G.ANOKHA” on payment of  19 nos. of monthly premium @ Rs.1100/- per month till 31.3.2016.  In this process, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.20,900/- from 23.09.2014 to 31.3.2016.  The maturity period was 72 months for the said monthly scheme.  It is stated by the complainant that due to some unavoidable situation she could not deposit the total premium amount.     After the maturity date, the complainant in order to get her matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions  but the O.Ps did not release her maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to settle her claim over the deposited amount of Rs.20,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony , pain, suffering  as well as towards deficiency of service together with a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

          The complainant has filed some documents alongwith her complaint petition in order to prove her case.

2.       The O.Ps have filed  written version stating therein that they  are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant being a member of the O.Ps Society is bound by the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act,2002.  it is further stated by the O.P that being attracted with the scheme framed by the O.Ps the complainant had invested her money in the scheme.  It is alleged by the O.Ps that the complainant being a member of society, the question of hiring service of society by the complainant does not arise. It is stated by them that the said Act provides that dispute if any between the parties would be settled under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 but not under the C.P.Act,2019.  The O.Ps have relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Commission (not filed copy of the order but quoted observation of the Hon’ble National Commission).  In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 in the case of Ms. Anjana/Abraham Chembethil Vs. The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank, decided on 2.9.2013 has held that the dispute between member and society is not a consumer dispute as well as Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such dispute.  Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if the O.Ps have adopted any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her ?

Issue no.i.

The O.Ps are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant is a member of the O.Ps.  Hence, the question arose whether any dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps is maintainable before this Commission as there is provision in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainant against the O.Ps.  In this regard, there is a pertinent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of this case reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, in the case of the Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others, wherein The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Cooperative Societies Act, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as there is no provision in the said Co-operative Society Act ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission.  The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Law of Land and would prevail upon the decision of Hon’ble National Commission and other decisions as relied upon by the O.Ps.

At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019.  In Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

In view of the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the case of the complainant is maintainable before this Commission.

Issue No.ii.

The averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by her.

Admittedly, the complainant had invested money by opening pass book on 23.9.2014 having A/c No. 13605102978 in one of the monthly scheme of the O.Ps namely  “G.Anokha” on payment of Rs.1100/-per month towards the  premiums till 31.3.2016 for 19 months.  The complainant has admitted to have not paid rest of premiums.  The contention of the complainant is supported with xerox copy of pass book of the said scheme as filed by her.

It is not disputed that the complainant had invested money @ Rs.1100/- per month and in total she had invested Rs.20,900/- with the O.Ps.  The maturity date of the said monthly scheme though clearly mentioned as 22.09.2020 which is after six years of opening the A/c but the O.Ps did not give the complainant the matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps many times to get his maturity amount  as well as she had served Advocate’s notice to them but they did not give the matured amount of her monthly deposits, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, there is a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2001(3) CPR, 194(NC) in the case of Smt. Kalawati & others Vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft & Credit Society Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that non-refund of fixed deposit after maturity comes under the deficiency in service.  This decision is applicable in the present case.  The complainant had invested money with the O.Ps for earning interest.  The complainant would have earned interest if she would have invested her money in any other private sector or public sector undertaking.  But in the present case the O.Ps did not give the matured amount by which  the complainant was deprived of getting her principal amount as well as interest component.   Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the complainant’s matured amount after its maturity period.  This issue is answered in favour of the complainant. 

Issue no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the interest component besides the compensation amount.      Hence, it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 20,900/- as deposited by the complainant in the monthly scheme of the O.Ps namely “G.ANOKHA” to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @  8% per annum from the respective date of deposits of premium in the A/c No. 13605102978 till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­30,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^th day of November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                               

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                      Member.

 

 

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President.