Date of Filing             :    08 August,  2022.

Date of Judgement    :    11 October, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Shiv Kumar Saroj, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act), against (1) the Branch Manager, Shivpur branch, (2) the General Manager and (2) the Chairman, all of M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., 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 at the office of the OP-1 a sum of Rs.65,250/- on 11/08/2018 in a Fixed Deposit Scheme for 24 months of  M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated above.  The OP company issued a Certificate bearing Certificate No.438000827988 having account no.15857402201 for this deposit on 11/08/2018.  The date of maturity as written in this certificate was 11/08/2020 and the maturity amount was written as Rs.81,850/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he went to the office of the OP- 1 to deposit the original certificate and other relevant documents.  The OP- 1 did not receive these documents, instead assured the complainant that after a few months they would disburse the assured maturity amount through cheques.  But that did not happen.  Then he sent a letter to all the OPs on 28/7/2022 requesting them to disburse the maturity amount immediately.  This time also his effort could not bring any fruitful result as the OPs did not respond to his request. Finding no other alternative way, the complainant filed this instant complaint before this Commission praying to direct the OP company: (i) to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment, (ii) to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 81,850/- together with simple interest from the maturity date till realisation, (iii) litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- and other relief(s) as this Commission may deem fit.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the Certificate bearing No.43800027988 issued by the OP company on 11/08/2018 and (ii) the letter issued by him to OP- 1 on 28/7/2022 as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notices were served upon the OPs, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OPs did not appear before this Commission nor had they filed any written version and thereby the case proceeded ex parte. Thereafter complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Then the argument was heard in details and the complainant filed 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 by way of disbursing the maturity amount for which the complainant 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 an amount of Rs.65,250/- on 11/08/2018 in the Scheme named “GOLDEN 24” of M/s. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated herein above having its registered office at Mangal Jyoti, 101,  227/2, A. J. C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020, for a period of 24 months and the company issued a Certificate to this effect bearing Nos. 438000827988 for payment of Rs.65,250/-. The allotted account no. is 15857402201 as stated in this Certificate. The date of opening this account was 11/08/2018 and the maturity date was fixed on 11/08/2020. The maturity amount as written in this certificate was Rs.81,850/-.  Complainant stated that after the maturity date the OP company failed to make payment of the maturity amount.  Complainant alleged that despite his repeated efforts OPs had not disbursed the maturity amount of Rs. 81,850/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises that whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  The facts state that complainant deposited his hard money in a specific scheme of the OPs and the OPs assured a higher return which implies 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” as defined under Section 2(7) of the C. P. Act, 2019 who availed “Service”, as defined under Section 2(42) of the Act, from the OPs/OP company.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Hon’ble National Commission where it is stated 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 company in question is the Service Provider as defined in the Act whose service is availed by the Depositor/ Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of the 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 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 his 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 he visited the branch office of the OP company and send letter to all the OPs to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP company had issued notice to the depositor/complainant after the date of maturity to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OPs did not contest the 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., except stating that he went to deposit the certificates and other documents to the OP-1 after the date of maturity but failed.

            As the OPs did not contest this case we have to contrary material to counter or rebut the allegations put forward by the complainant.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amounts for which he has come before this Commission and the OP company is deficient in providing ‘service’ as they have not returned the promised maturity amounts.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim 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 with the OP company for more than three years beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with simple interest on the matured amount. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement in DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019] stated: “when interest is awarded by way of damages awarding additional compensation is unjustified”.  So, we think awarding interest @ 9% on the matured amount with effect from the date of maturity is enough as a compensation the complainant is entitled to receive from the OP company.  The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.8,000/- 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 No. CC/213/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the maturity amount of          Rs.81,850/- along with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of maturity, i. e. from 11/08/2020, till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  They are also directed to pay Rs.8,000/- 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.