Date of Filing             :    31 March, 2021.

Date of Judgement    :    25 September, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Tejinder Singh Chahal, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hereinafter called the said Act, against (1) the Branch Manager, Rishra Branch; (2) The General Manager and (3) the Chairman, all of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (M/s. Sahara India), hereinafter collectively called as the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of monthly interest and premature withdrawal of invested amount by the OPs.

            The material facts arising out of the complaint petition and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited a total sum of ₹46,000/- on 07/09/2015 at the office of OP-1 in a particular scheme named as ‘Mega FB JUNCTION BASERA’ of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, the OP company as stated hereinabove. The OP-1 issued 3 (three) certificates to the complainant after receiving respective amounts. Those deposits were for 120 months i. e. up to 07/09/2025 and the maturity amount remained same as that of the amount deposited.  Monthly payment of interest in respect of each deposit was also written in each certificate.  Complainant alleged that he received respective monthly interests up to March, 2019 and from April, 2019 the OPs stopped payment of monthly interests.  It is the allegation of the complainant that when he found that the OPs would not disburse any interests further, he requested the OPs to refund the deposited amounts prematurely, but the OPs had not taken any step for any refund, not even paid any interest due to him.  He then sent a letter to all the OPs on 22/02/2021 demanding interests pending up to that month and also demanded to refund the total invested amount ₹46,000/- to him.  But this time also the OPs took no step, complainant had not received any response from the OPs.  Finding no other alternative way complainant came to this Commission  and filed this complaint praying to direct the OPs: (a) to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- for his physical and mental harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs; (b) to pay the total invested amount of ₹46,000/- along with up to date monthly interest thereon; (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation,  (d) litigation cost of  ₹40,000/- and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission may deem fit and proper as per law.

Complainant filed copies of (i) 3 (three) Certificates issued by the OP-1 on 07/09/2015 and (ii) the letter dated 22/02/2021 issued by him to all the OPs along with postal track reports as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notices were served upon the OPs, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written versions.  Notice issued upon OP-1 returned with postal remark: “UNCLAIMED” which is taken as a valid service. Other OPs received their respective notices. But none of the OPs appeared before this Commission nor did they file their written versions and consequently the case proceeded ex parte against all the OPs. Complainant then filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed his 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 OPs are 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 petition and the annexed documents is that the complainant on 07/09/2015 had deposited at the office of the OP-1 a total sum of ₹46,000/- in a scheme named as ‘Mega FB JUNCTION BASERA’ 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-1 issued 3 (three) Certificates after receiving respective deposits, details of which are given below:

            In each certificate it is written as: “Received From Member Account Holder Shri/Smt./ Miss TEJINDER SINGH CHAHAL  a sum of Rupees 18,000/-  on date 07/079/2015 for the period of 120  months.”  It is also written in this certificate that: “This shall bear fixed interest as per rules of the Society under the terms and conditions of the Scheme.”  The Maturity Amount is written thereon as ₹18,000/- or ₹10,000/- and the Maturity Date is written as 07/09/2025.  Monthly interest rate is written in each certificate as ₹180/- or ₹100/- as the case may be.

            On the reverse page of each certificate a table of monthly interest withdrawal is given wherefrom it appears that interest paid to the depositor/complainant up to the month of March, 2019. 

            Complainant stated that he repeatedly requested the OPs to refund the invested amount prematurely, but the OPs failed to fulfil his request, even his demand letter dated 22/02/2021 brought no fruitful result for which this complaint has been filed.

            As the OPs did not participate in contesting this case even after receiving notice we have no contrary material to counter or rebut the complaint petition which was put forward by the complainant.

            A question now arises: whether the complainant is a Consumer as is defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  The facts in this case state that complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OPs and the OPs assured a regular monthly interest for 120 months and refund of invested amount after the maturity date which means that the OPs 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 “Service”, as is  defined under section 2(42) of this Act, of the OP company.  It is a settled principle that when a person availed or hired a service of a company for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer, under the C. P. Act, of that company.  Here the OPs are 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 a financial transaction like this case under the consumer Protection Act, 2019. The OPs took deposit of the said amount for a particular scheme with a promise of monetary benefit to the depositor/complainant for a particular period of time.  Complainant deposited his money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OPs who were working with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he visited the office of the OPs frequently to get back the interests due and wanted to withdraw the invested amount prematurely but failed. Whether the OPs had issued notice to the complainant after receiving the request of premature withdrawal to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OPs did not contest this case after filing their written version, 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. except stating that the OPs had not refund the invested amount

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount after the maturity date for which he has come before this Commission and the OPs are deficient in providing proper service to the depositor/complainant as they have not returned the invested amount.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim the refund of the maturity amount and the OPs are liable to refund the maturity amount.  Complaint claimed the invested amount of ₹46,000/- as is written in the certificate.  The OPs are 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 OPs for a long period.  Complainant claimed ₹50,000/- as compensation along with interest on the matured amount, but it is a settled principle that when compensation is awarded in the form of interest then awarding interest together with compensation is unjustified.  We think awarding interest at the rate of 9% on the invested amount of ₹46,000/- with effect from 01/04/2019 till the date of this order will be sufficient enough as compensation.  The complainant is also entitled to get ₹5,000/- as litigation cost as he is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get relief of his grievance.

            Hence, it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/94/2021 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the invested amount of ₹46,000/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from 01/04/2019 till the date of this order. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  These payments should be made to the complainant by the Opposite Parties within 45 days 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.