Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    13 December, 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    19 September, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Smt. Laxmi Gupta, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after called the said Act, against the Branch Manager, Domjur branch 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 by the OP company.

            The material facts of the complaint and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.20,767/- on 31/05/2016 in a scheme named ‘F36 GOLDEN VM’ of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, the OP company as stated hereinabove. The OP company then issued a certificate on 31/05/2016 for this deposit in favour of the complainant and the date of maturity was written as 31/05/2019 and the maturity amount was written as Rs.31,898/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date she repeatedly requested the OP to disburse the maturity amount but every time the OP company did not pay any heed to her requests.  Finding no other alternative way she came to this Forum/Commission  praying to direct the OP company: (i) to refund the maturity amount of Rs.31,898/- along with interest, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

Complainant filed copies of (i) the certificate bearing No. 605001582086 issued by the OP company on 31/05/2016 and (ii) the complainant’s EPIC card as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notice was served upon the OP, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OP appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed her Evidence on Affidavit through her Ld. Lawyer.  Later, the OP failed to file any questionnaire and Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed her Brief Notes on Argument.  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 she is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            Before entering into our discussion be it mentioned here that in the complaint petition the name of the complainant is written as ‘LAXMI GUPTA’ whereas in the certificate issued by the OP company it is written as: ‘Received from Member Account Holder Shri/Smt./Miss LAKSHMI GUPTA a sum of Rs.20767 …’.  In the copy of the EPIC Card also the complainant’s name is written as ‘Lakshmi Gupta’. So the spelling of the complainant’s name has been misspelt in the complaint petition.  As the complainant has signed in every page of the complaint in Bengali language so, we can take the name of the complainant as LAKSHMI GUPTA, assuming that both LAXMI and LAKSHMI are being used to describe the name. Following the landmark decision reported in  (1994) 1 SC 243 / 1994 AIR 787, Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, let us take it as Smt. Laxmi Gupta and Smt. Lakshmi Gupta be the same and only one person.

            However, the factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited Rs.20,767/- on 31/05/2016 in a scheme named as ‘F36 GOLDEN VM’ 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, A. J. C, Bose Road, Kolkata–700020. The OP company issued a certificate bearing No. 605001582086, which the complainant has stated as the Receipt number in her complaint petition, for this deposit on that date.  The tenure of this certificate was for the period of 36 months and thereby the maturity date was written as 31/05/3019.  The maturity amount was written as Rs.31,898/-.  Complainant stated that after the maturity date she made requests frequently to the OP to disburse the maturity amount.  But the OP failed to disburse the maturity amount.  Ultimately, finding no other way to get back her invested money she filed this instant complaint before this Forum/Commission praying for refund the maturity amount by the OP.

            In their written version OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition. They alleged that the complainant failed to submit the KYC and other documents for her claim for the maturity amount. The OP stated that this complaint was imaginary and liable to be dismissed.  But  they failed to establish their statement by explaining it with reasons.  No document has been filed by them in support of their claim.  Here, it is to be noted that the OP has confessed in their written version that there was a ‘maturity amount’, so there must be a time limit after which this maturity amount was to be disbursed to the customer/complainant.  However, 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 company became fruitless. Complainant alleged that despite her repeated requests the OP company had not disbursed the maturity amount of Rs.31,898/- in her favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protetion Act, 1986?  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 defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 who availed “Service”, as defined under section 2(1)(o) of this Act, of the OP company.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a bank or a non-banking financial company (NBFC) for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act to that bank or NBFC.  Here the bank or the NBFC, as the case may be, is the Service Provider whose service is availed by the Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of a dispute in financial transaction like this case. However, we do not know whether the OP company is a registered banking company or an NBFC as there is no documents filed in this case regarding this matter. But in this case the OP company took deposit of the said amount for a particular scheme with a promise to return higher amount after a particular period of time.  Complainant deposited her money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OP company who were running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that she visited the office of the OP company frequently to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP company had issued notice to the complainant after the date of maturity to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OP company did not contest this case after filing their written version, nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in her complaint petition as well as in her evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount for which she has come before this Commission and the OP company 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 company is liable to refund the maturity amount.  The OP company 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 Rs.5,000/- 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], I think awarding interest @ 9% on the maturity amount with effect from the date of maturity will be sufficient enough as a compensation.  She is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost as prayed for since she is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get relief of her grievance with the help of this Commission.

            Hence,

                                        it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/400/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant Rs.31,898/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the maturity date, 31/05/2019, till the date of this order within 60 days.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within this abovementioned time period 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 to both the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.