Orissa

Cuttak

CC/51/2021

Prabhati Rani Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory,Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G Mishra

01 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

                                                            C.C.No.51/2021

                        Prabhati Rani Rath,

W/O:Durga Charan Satapathy,

At:Plot No.3D/1266/32,Sector-II,

C.D.A,Cuttack..                                                           ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       The Authorized Signatory,

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.,

        Dhanupali,Sambalpur,Odisha

 

2.      Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.,

Command Office:Sahara India Bhawan,

1,Kapoorthala Complex,Lucknow-226024.         ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    10.03.2021

Date of Order:   01.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. G.N.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.               :                    None.     

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member                           

            Case of the complainant in short is that she purchased four bonds each of Rs.1000/- from the O.Ps on 19.7.2006 with an assurance that on maturity i.e. on 19.9.18, the O.Ps would pay her Rs.30,000/- for each of the bonds towards its  redemption value.  It is further stated by the complainant that on 30.8.2006, she purchased another two bonds bearing sl.no.96300159857 and no.963001598580 with an assurance that on maturity i.e on 30.10.18 the O.Ps would pay her Rs.30,000/- for the bond bearing no. 96300159857  and Rs.15,000/- for the bond bearing no. 963001598580 towards the redemption value of the said bonds.  On maturity, the complainant approached the O.P No.1 for encashing those bonds but the O.P no.1 avoided to pay the maturity amount.  Thereafter, the complainant approached several times for disbursement of the matured amount but O.Ps did not pay the said amount and avoided on some plea or other.  Hence, on 1.12.20, she issued a legal notice to the O.P no.1 for payment of her matured value of the six bonds but the O.Ps did not take any step for payment of her matured amount.  Hence, the complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay the maturity amount of her bonds alongwith interest, so also prayed for direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation as well as Rs.50,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

            The complainant in order to prove her case has filed xerox copies of some documents.

2.         Both the O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested the case, hence they were set exparte.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition alongwith the documents as filed, this Commission is of a view to settle the following points in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

                        i.          Whether the case is barred by limitation ?

                        ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

                        iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps ?

                        iv.        Whether the O.Ps have adopted any unfair trade practice ?

                        v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

 

point no.i.

            The complainant had purchased bonds from the O.Ps on 19.7.2006 and the date of maturity/redemption of those bonds were 19.9.2018.  The complainant had approached the O.P no.1 several times for getting her matured amount/redemption value of the bonds but the O.Ps did not pay the same.  Thereafter, the complainant had also given legal notice to the O.P no.1 on 1.12.20 for payment of her matured amount but the O.Ps did not respond to the said notice.  The cause of action for filing the case for the purpose of limitation arose on 19.9.2018, when the bonds were matured.  As per the Sec-69 of the C.P.Act,2019, the complaint case should have filed within two years from the date of cause of action i.e. by 18.9.2020.  But the complainant has filed the case on 10.3.21.  It is pertinent to mention here that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, taking into consideration the difficulties of the general public, the Hon’ble National Commission vide its office order no.7/2022, dt.14.1.2022  by following the order dt.10.1.22 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A.No.21 of 2022 and M.A.No.665/2021 in suo-moto Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020 had enhanced the limitation period from 15.3.2020 to 29.5.2022 where the limitation period for filing the case had expired by 14.3.2020.   The plea of the O.Ps during hearing of the case, to the effect that the case is barred by limitation is not sustainable and the case is filed during the limitation period.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant

Points no.iii & iv.

            Out of the rest points, points no.iii & iv being the pertinent points are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            The averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by her.  Both the O.Ps have not filed their written version but participated in the hearing of this case.  It is argued by the O.Ps that as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, the present case is not maintainable before this Commission.  But as per the provisions of C.P.Act,2019,  the complainant can approach this Commission even if there is an Arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties and there is no bar for the complainant to approach this Commission.  Hence, the plea of the O.Ps is not sustainable.  The complainant had purchased four nos. of bond bearing no. 963001598379, 963001598380, 963001598381 & 963001598382 on 19.7.2006 on payment of Rs.4,000/- in total.  It is clearly mentioned in that certificates/bonds that the said bond would be matured on 19.9.18 and the matured value would be Rs.30,000/-  for each of the bond.  The O.Ps did not give the matured amount after the maturity period.  So the complainant approached the O.P No.1 several times to get the maturity amount but the O.Ps did not give the matured amount/redemption value of the bonds.  The complainant also had given a legal notice to the O.P no.1 on 1.12.20 for payment of the matured amount/redemption value of her bonds but that yields no result.  As such, this Commission has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the O.Ps had caused deficiency in service and had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the complainant’s maturity amount/redemption value of the bonds to her.  So far as the allegation of the complainant to the effect that she had purchased another two bonds bearing no. 96300159857 and no.963001598580, is not supported with any documentary evidence.  Hence, she is not entitled for the maturity amount/redemption value of those two bonds.

Points no.ii & v.

            In view of the above finding, it is held that this case is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed exparte against the O.Ps.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable in this case.  The O.Ps are hereby directed to disburse to the complainant the total maturity amount of four bonds amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 19.9.18 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards her mental agony and harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation  cost within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member.

                                                                                                                                                                     

 

               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President