Date of Filing             :    27 December, 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    25 April, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Shankar Kumar Mondal, 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, Andul Mouri Bazar Branch, (2) The General Manager and (3) the Chairman, all of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (M/s. Sahara India), hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity 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 sum of ₹27,000/- on 20/10/2018 at the office of OP-1 in a particular scheme named ‘GOLDEN 24’ of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited, the OP company as stated hereinabove. The OP-1 issued a certificate along with a receipt on that date for such deposit in favour of the complainant and the date of maturity was written as 20/10/2020.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he went to OP-1 to deposit the Certificate and other relative documents for receiving the maturity amount but the OP-1 did not receive the documents but assured him that after some months they would disburse the maturity amount issuing cheque. Some months have passed but the OPs failed to disburse the maturity amount.  He visited the offices of the OPs repeatedly requesting them to disburse his desired maturity amount but every time the OPs did not pay any heed to his requests.  He then sent a letter to all the OPs on 24/08/2022 requesting them to disburse the maturity amount in his favour but his letter did not bring any fruitful result as the OPs did not respond to his letter.  Finding no other alternative way the complainant came to this Commission  and filed this complaint praying to direct the OPs: (a) to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for his physical and mental harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to pay the maturity amount of ₹33,869/- along with interest from the maturity date till realization, (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation,  (d) litigation cost of  ₹50,000/- and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission may deem fit and proper as per law.

Complainant filed copies of (i) Receipt bearing No. 665010128835 & Certificate bearing No. 438000262390, both dated 20/10/2018 and (ii) the letter dated 24/08/2022 issued by him to all the OPs and the respective postal 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.  None of the OPs appeared 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 and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited at the office of the OP-1 a sum of ₹27,000/- on 20/10/2018 in a 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, A. J. C, Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020. The OP-1 issued a receipt bearing number 665010128835 and a certificate bearing number 438000262390 on that date.  The tenure of this deposit was  for 24 months. 

            In the receipt it is written as: “Received from Member Account Holder Shri/Smt./Miss SHANKAR KUMAR MONDAL  a sum of ₹27,000/- on date 20/10/2018 for the period of 24 months.” In this receipt the Maturity Amount is written as ₹33,869/- and the Maturity Date is written as 20/10/2020.  In the certificate it is written as: “On the basis of association with this Society and various other factors you as our esteemed member shall be enrolled with 378 joining points. Decision about quantum of joining points earned by you shall be on basis of your contribution in the activities as per the objects of the Society.   …..   Accumulated joining points can be redeemed after expiry of 24 months from the date of joining based on conversion rate in the form of cash/cash equivalent services as may be decided by the Borad of Directors depending on the performance of the Society from time to time.”  It is also written therein that: “On the basis of participation in the activities or objects of the society and various other factors member can further accumulate up to 474 Joining Points which could be approximately amount to ₹47,480/- depending upon the various factors at the time of redemption.”  [Emphasis provided.]

            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 defined in the Consumer Protetion 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 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(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, who availed “Service”, as defined under section 2(42)(o) of this Act, of the OP company.  It is a settled principle that when a person availed or hired a service of an organisation for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act to that organisation.  Here the OPs 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. The OPs 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 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 maturity amount but failed. Whether the OPs had issued notice to the complainant after the date of maturity 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.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount after expiry of 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 promised maturity 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 maturity amount of ₹33,869/- as is written in the receipt, though he could claim a higher amount as per the statement of 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 long period beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed ₹1,00,000/- 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.  So, we think awarding interest @ 9% on the maturity amount 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 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/340/2022 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the promised maturity amount of ₹33,869/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the maturity date, i. e. from 20/10/2020 till the date of this order. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  These directions should be carried out by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of receiving 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.