MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The factual matrix of case is that, the Complainant after consultation of an employee/agent of OP.1 named one Bijay Kumar Panigrahi, vide his employee code No.113914058 procured a scheme, Sahara M Benefit scheme with the OP.s vide A/c No.11392919181 on dt.08.10.2008 with recurring deposit of Rs.500/- p.m. for 5 years but after completion of the agreed period with regular deposits, despite applying for the maturity value and several approaches by the complainant, the OP.s did not pay any heed to her request. The complainant is a chronic patient and it is very difficult in her part to approach the OP.s for several times, hence inflicting mental agony and financial crunches, she craves the leave of this forum and prayed to allow to refund her legitimate amount with assured benefits and to allow a sum of Rs.55,000/- as compensation and cost.
2. On the other hand the counsel for OP.s entered his appearance and filed counter in the case wherein he specified nothing except evasive denials with an objection on jurisdiction. The complainant has filed copy of some relevant documents relating to the scheme. The counsel for OP.s and complainant has minutely heard the case and the submissions considered.
3. Prima facie from the record it is clear that the complainant being the scheme holder of OP.s and the OP.s having their business at this locality i.e. within Nabarangpur Municipal area, hence the complainant is a consumer under the OP.s. The OP further contended that the complainant has already entered into their arbitration, as per clause 10 hence the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
4. It is further reveals from the record that, the complainant is a consumer under the OP.s by paying regular scheme amount of Rs.500/- p.m. and had paid the amount as per agreement for 60 months up to 08.10.2008, and when the complainant was under medical treatment and acute need of money, she applied for the maturity benefits under the scheme submitting the required documents like scheme bond, voter Id, bank pass book Xerox, Pan card along with claim forms submitted before the OP.s but the OP.s after receipt of the same again and again demanded the same documents for settlement of the claim. Though the OP.s taken the plea to approach arbitration, but the forum made them clear that to read Sec.3 of the C.P.Act 1986 where in the Act provides “The Act not in derogation of any other law”. Hence the plea of jurisdiction is baseless, which seems the dilly dallying tactics of OP.s to linger the matter in cyclostyled manner. As thus we feel that the OP collecting remunerations from the consumer with milk coated approaches through their agents but at the time of maturity they refused their account holder by way of vogue pleas and even they do not feel it proper to provide the account status to their account holder/consumer and kept them in dark. Hence we feel that the action of OP.s is gross negligence, unfair trade, arbitrary, highhanded which amounts to deficiency in service, so in result we found the OP.s guilty under the sections of C.P.Act 1986, for which the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief. So we allowed the complaint against the OP.s with cost.
ORDER
i. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the total benefits covered in the scheme as per agreement, along with 9% interest p.a. calculated from the date of maturity to till the date of such payment, inter alia to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as the cost of litigation to the complainant.
ii. The directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will add 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 10th day of Nov' 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
