This is a case U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainants for an order directing the O.Ps to pay Rs.7,00,691/- with interest of fixed deposits (MIS)/savings account, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that they are consumers under the O.Ps, they have purchased Term deposit (MIS) mentioned in the schedule from O.P, after maturity of MIS (Fixed Term Deposits) sum stands in name of complainants, on several occasions complainants visited the office of O.P.No:1 who could not disburse the matured value. The complainants submitted written representation but the O.Ps did not provide receive endorsement copy to the complainants, lastly on 16.02.2022 complainants through Ld. Advocate Sujan Sundar Seal sent written representation for making arrangement for release/disburse entire amount lying with the bank within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter, in spite of receiving the letter on 18.02.2022 O.Ps keep dumb.
That O.P.No:1 is merged with O.P.No:2 so the O.Ps are jointly responsible for negligent act & harassment of complainants for which the complainants are facing irreparable financial loss, mental pain and agony.
O.P.No:1 did not appear so case is heard ex-parte against it.
O.P.No:2 contested the case by filing W.V stating that the complainants are not the consumer of O.P.No:2, they purchased MIS from O.P.No:1 which despite being matured maturity value were not delivered to complainants, that O.P.No:2 is controlled by RBI & Nabard, O.P.No:1 is a credit society and O.P.No:2 provides only NOC to O.P.No:1 in respect of society formation and they are guided by their by law and management and they are the share holder of O.P.No:2, they can approach before O.P.No:2 for getting loan and in that situation O.P.No:2 can consider the same as per loan policy of O.P.No:2. O.P.No:1 never merged with O.P.No:2, now O.P.No:1 is functionless & O.P.No:2 has no role in the present case. The complaint is not maintainable and there exists no deficiency of service and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for Consideration
- Whether there exists any deficiency on the part of O.Ps?
- Are the complainants entitled to get relief as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n W i t h R e a s o n s
It appears that ARCS, Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj was originally made O.P.No:3 in this case Jt. RCS (Law, West Bengal) in File No:DCOOP-15011/1/2020-Law Cell-DCOOP, wrote a letter dated 08.02.2021 to ARCS, Uttar Dinajpur that Section 102 (4) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 provides that any Civil Court or any Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in Sub-Section (1) and the complaint regarding non-refund of deposit to depositor by the Raiganj Mahila Co-operative Credit Society Ltd (Mahila Bank) comes within the scope and meaning of section 102 (1) of the said act and the matter is therefore barred by Section 102(4) & not maintainable.
Consequently, complainants amended the complaint petition deleting O.P.No:3/ARCS, Uttar Dinajpur.
Ld. Advocate for O.P.No:2 argued that U/s 102 (2) any dispute mentioned in Sub Section (1) other than a dispute relating to recovery of money shall be filed before the Registrar within 03 months from the date on which the cause of action arises.
Complainants produced xerox copy of Savings Bank A/c No:2930(Ledger No:30, Folio No:117) at present A/c No:100085 (Ledger No:15, Folio No:13) showing closing balance Rs.3,00,691/- as on 31.05.2021. It depicts i. MIS-Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 16.09.2013 Certificate No:0367 (3 Yrs) 10% Intt, matured:16.09.2016 and ii. MIS-Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 11.03.2015 C/No.0121 (1 year) matured 11.03.2016, extended 11.03.2021 Intt. @9.55% p.a. Term Deposit Receipt (scheme MIS) certificate No:0367 stands in name of complainant No:1, extended from 16.09.2016 to 16.09.2021 for 60 months @ 10% Intt. Another Term Deposit Receipt (scheme MIS), Certificate No:0212 of Rs.1,00,000/- stands in name of the complainants issued on 24.01.2020 to be matured on 24.01.2025 @10% Intt. Another Term Deposit Receipt (Scheme MIS), Certificate No:0640 stands in name of the complainants for Rs.2,00,000/- issued on 21.02.2017 to be matured on 21.02.2022 interest @10%. Savings passbook shows entry dated 31.05.2021 by MIS amount transferred Rs.3,00,000/- which complainants did not explain. S.B account passbook has no further entry, so what happened to certificate No:0367, to be matured on 16.09.2021 & certificate No:0640 to be matured on 21.02.2022 could not be ascertained, as both were matured prior to filing of the case dated 04.04.2022. Certificate No:0212 to be matured on 24.01.2025 found running after filing of the case till date.
The complainant’s case is that several occasions they went to the office of O.Ps to withdraw their money from MIS & Savings account but they were not allowed, so they lastly on 16.02.2022 through their Advocate Sujan Sundar Seal sent written representation for making arrangement for release/disburse entire amount lying with the Bank within 10 days from the date of receipt thereof, in spite of receiving on 18.02.2022 O.Ps keep dumb.
The case of O.P.No:2 is that it is controlled by RBI & Nabard, takes help of Co-Operative Department & received Govt. Order/Circular through ARCS, Uttar Dinajpur and that there is no connection between O.P.No:1 & O.P.No:2, that O.P.No:1 never merged with O.P.No:2, that O.P.No:1 is not guided by the RBI rather it is credit society guided by there by law and management, that O.P.No:2 provides only NOC to O.P.No:1 in respect of society formation, that O.P.No:1 is the share holder of O.P.No:2 who can approach before O.P.No:2 for getting loan and in that situation O.P.No:2 can consider the same as per loan policy of O.P.No:2. West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 supports the case of O.P.No:2.
O.P.No:2 stated that complainants deposited their money with O.P.No:1 which is a private credit society, now it is functionless.
Under aforesaid facts and discussion we are of the view that complainants being consumer of O.P.No:1 are entitled to get relief as against O.P.No:1 only but there is no consumer service provider relationship between complainants and O.P.No:2 and there exists no deficiency of service on the part of O.P.No:2, so the complainants cannot get any relief against O.P.No:2. Being undisputed that O.P.No:1 is now functionless we are not inclined to grant any amount as compensation and litigation cost to the complainants.
The case is succeeds.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint case being No:C.C-26/2022 is allowed ex-parte against O.P.No:1 but dismissed on contest against O.P.No-2 without cost.
We do direct the O.P.No-1 i.e the Branch Manager, Raiganj Mahila Co-Operative Credit Society Limited (Mahila Bank) to pay Rs.7,00,691/-as claimed against Term Deposit (MIS)/Savings account. The entire amount to be paid by the O.P.No-1 within 01 month from the date of communication of this judgment, failing which the complainants may proceed according to law.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
