Date of Filing             :    20 January, 2021.

Date of Judgement    :    17 May, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Ganesh Shaw, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hereinafter called the said Act, against the Branch Manager of M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., hereinafter called the Opposite Party or OP, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP arising out of non-payment of maturity amount.

            The complaint states that the Complainant deposited at the office of the OP a total sum of ₹9,98,800/- on 11/08/2018 in a particular scheme named as ‘GOLDEN 24’ of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, the OP company as stated hereinabove. The OP issued total 16 (sixteen) certificates on that date for the total deposit in favour of the complainant. The date of maturity was written as 11/08/2020  in each certificate and the total maturity amount as calculated on the basis of maturity amount written in these certificates was ₹12,54,047/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he repeatedly requested the OP to disburse the maturity amount but every time the OP company did not pay any heed to his requests.  Finding no other alternative way the complainant came to this Commission  and filed this complaint praying to direct the OP: (i) to refund the maturity amount of ₹12,54,047/- (including interest) and (ii) to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of ₹25,000/-.

Complainant filed copies of (i) 16 certificates, each having two parts, issued by the OP on 11/08/2018 and (ii) the complainant’s EPIC and AADHAAR cards as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notice was served twice upon the OP, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  None appeared on behalf of the OP nor did they file any written version, consequently the case proceeded ex parte. Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit and Brief Notes on Argument through his Ld. Lawyer.  Ultimately argument was heard in full.  We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited a total sum of ₹4,31,500/- on 11/08/2018 in a particular scheme named as ‘GOLDEN 24’ of M/s. HUMARA INDIA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, the OP company as stated hereinabove, having its registered office at Mangal Jyoti, 101, 227/2, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020. The OP company issued total 16 (sixteen) certificates to the complainant on that date through it’s Sector/Branch Office, the OP as stated herein above.  The tenure of all these deposits were for 24 months.  The details of deposits and the corresponding certificates, each having two parts, issued by the OP stating the maturity amount and date of maturity are given below:

            So, according to the statement made in the complaint and from the above table, complainant deposited total ₹4,31,500/- in a particular scheme of the OP on 11/08/2018, and not ₹9,88,800/- as stated in the complaint petition. Complainant stated that after the maturity he made request on 11/08/2020, 0920/09/2020 and thereafter on many occasions to the OP to disburse the maturity amount which, as per the above noted certificates, was ₹5.41.275/- and not that ₹12,54,047/-.  But the OP failed to disburse the maturity amount.  Ultimately, finding no other way to get back his invested money as per the scheme he filed this instant complaint before this Commission.

            Now, we take a look in each of the certificates.  Every certificate has two parts.  In one part there is a certificate number and a receipt number are given as stated in the table above along with a membership number,  It is also stated therein that the stated amount has been received from the ‘Member Account Holder’ for a period of 24 months.  The Account Number, Maturity Amount and the Maturity Date are also written in this part. On the other part, beside the Account Number and the Membership Number, it is written that: “On the basis of association with this Society and various other factors you as our esteemed member shall be enrolled with ….. joining points.”  For the investment of ₹50,000/- it is stated in the corresponding certificate that the allotted number of joining points is 606.  It is also stated in the certificate for the investment of ₹50,000/- that: “On the basis of participation in the activities as per objects of the society and various other factors member can further accumulate maximum upto 760 Joining Points which could be approximately amount to ₹76,088/- depending upon the various factors at the time of redemption.”  [Emphasis provided]

            So, according to the certificates, a member could earn beyond the Maturity Amount “depending on various factors”, and this is why the complainant claimed ₹12,54,047/-.

            As the OP did not turn up to contest the instant case we have no alternative version except the instant complaint to counter or rebut it.  Here, it is to be noted that in each of the certificates issued by the OP there was a ‘maturity amount’ and there was a ‘maturity date’ after which this maturity amount was to be disbursed to the complainant.  So, the complainant must expect the ‘maturity amount’ after the time period fixed for the scheme.  Here, according the complaint, the complainant’s repeated efforts to get back the maturity amount from the OP became fruitless. Complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests OP company did not disburse the maturity amount of ₹5,41,275/-, save and except the higher amount as stated in the certificates, in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protetion Act, 2019?  The facts state that complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OP and the OP assured a higher return which means that the OP promised to give service to the depositor in the form of monetary benefit.  This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” under the OP as is defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, who intended to avail the “Service”, as is defined under section 2(42) of this Act, of the OP.  It is a settled principle that when a person availed or hired a service of a company/society for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer, under the C. P. Act, to that company/society.  Here the company/society is the Service Provider whose service is intended to be availed by the Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of such financial transaction like this case. The OP took deposit of an amount for a particular scheme with a promise to return higher amount after a particular period of time.  Complainant deposited his money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OP who was running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he visited the office of the OP frequently to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP had issued notice to the complainant after the maturity date to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OP did not contest this case nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in his complaint petition as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount for which he has come before this Commission and the OP is deficient in providing proper service as they have not returned the promised maturity amount.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim the refund of the maturity amount and the OP is liable to refund the maturity amount.  The OP is liable to compensate for their deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get relief by way of compensation as the promised amount is lying undisbursed with the OP company for nearly four years beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed ₹1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest on the matured amount, but keeping in mind the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019], this Commission thinks awarding interest @ 9% on the maturity amount of ₹5,41,275/- with effect from the date of maturity will be sufficient enough as a compensation.  The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost since he is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get relief of his grievance with the help of this Commission.

            Hence,  it is

ORDERED

            That the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/22/2021 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant the promised maturity amount of ₹5,41,275/- together with a simple interest at the rate of  9% per annum on this amount with effect from the maturity date, i. e. from 11/08/2020, till the date of this order.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay ₹5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. These payments should be made by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realisation.

            Let a copy of this order be issued, on demand, to both the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.