West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/26/2020

Sri Arup Sarkar, S/O-Suresh Saerkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Balurghat Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Kanai Dutta

03 Mar 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Party claiming an amount of Rs.1,30,600/- and interest @ 12%  on and from the date of claim up to the date of realization + Rs. 15,000/- as Compensation + Rs. 10,000/- as Litigation cost, Total = Rs.1,55,600/-

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant invested Rs.50,000/- in Sahara India under their scheme Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. at Balurghat Branch on 07.12.2011.On the same date separate certificates were issued in the name of the Complainant, vide no.351001064745 of Rs.17,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.44,404/-,vide no.351001064744 of Rs.16,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.41,792/- and vide no.351001064743 of Rs.17,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.44,404/-, all were of 96 months. In the mean time from various information’s the Complainant came to know that several economical fraud has been detected against the company and the Govt. took some steps against them. Accordingly, the Complainant went to the Branch office at Balurghat and demanded maturity amount of his certificates but on several times the Opposite Party told that his amount are kept secured and there was no chance of any loss for his and being assurance and refusal for premature he returned back and the Opposite Party pressurized for re-investment. After the date of maturity the Complainant again went to the office of the Opposite Party on 27.01.2020 and deposited the copy of all certificates and also took some signatures of the Complainant and told him that they will send the same to their head office and soon he will get the maturity amount. Again on several occasions, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to pay his maturity amount but in vain. Having no alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as per prayer of the plaint.

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party appeared before this commission and filed his written version.

            By filing written version, the Opposite Party has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The Opposite Party has submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the relationship between the Opposite Party and the Complainant is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the Opposite Party and the Complainant is a commercial / financial and any grievance on it should be redressed in civil court only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party has further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Due to dispute with SEBI and the matter is pending Before Honble Supreme Court of India. The delay payment is happened as the Apex Court imposed Embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of companies on 21.11.2013. Subsequently, another petition has been filed by the Sahara Group of companies to lift Embargo on the Sahara Group of companies and so that they raised money from their assets and their business. But Hon`ble Supreme Court has rejected the petition. The Complainant never went to the office of the Opposite Party to claim his matured amount.  Hence, the present case is liable to be dismissed.

To prove his case, the complainant has filed

(i)  Photo copy of a letter dated 27.01.2020 addressed to secto manager       of O.P.

(ii) Photo Copies of three Sahara E shine policy certificates being nos.351001064743,351001064744 and 351001064745.

(iii)  Photo copy of postal receipt dated 27.012020.

          On the other hand, the Opposite Party has failed to file any document in support of his defense.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration 

 

      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

       

 1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

 2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

 3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

 

                                         DECISION  WITH  REASONS

           

            We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have also gone through the written examination- chief and written argument filed by the both sides.  Perused the other materials on record.   

            At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint . He further submitted that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has successfully proved his case. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. advocate further submitted that the Complainant never came to the office of the Opposite Party to draw her payable amount. However, there is some delay to pay the amount due to the Embargo imposed upon the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is not entitled to get compensation because the Opposite Party never harassed him.           

             Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

 

Point No. 1

          

          On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant is a Policy Holder of Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited i.e. Opposite Party. If that be the so, then it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party according to section (2) of Consumer Protection Act,1986.        

          Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3 

        

 Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.   

              It is an admitted fact that  the Complainant invested Rs.50,000/- in Sahara India under their scheme Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. at Balurghat Branch on 07.12.2011.On the same date separate certificates were issued in the name of the Complainant, vide no.351001064745 of Rs.17,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.44,404/-,vide no.351001064744 of Rs.16,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.41,792/- and vide no.351001064743 of Rs.17,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.44,404/-, all were of 96 month.            

 

       Now, after maturity of the said policy, the Complainant requested several times to make payment of the maturity amount but the Opposite Parties have failed to do so. 

 

       On perusal of the three Sahara E Shine policies vide no.351001064745 of Rs.17,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.44,404/-,vide no.351001064744 of Rs.16,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.41,792/- and vide no.351001064743 of Rs.17,000/-, maturity date 07.12.2019, maturity amount Rs.44,404/-, all were of 96 month, it appears that the case of the Complainant is true and same is also has been proved. Further on perusal of the letter and postal receipt dated 27.01.2020, it can be said that the Complainant requested the Opposite Party for payment of the maturity amount but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed. Here, it appears clearly that there is negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

           Therefore, we opine that the Complainant is entitled to get maturity amount of the Sahara E Shine policy certificates from the Opposite Parties along with interest from the expiry of the date of maturity. The Complainant is also entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.

 

          In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

Hence, the case succeeds. 

 

Hence, it is

       

                                                            O R D E R E D

           

             That the Consumer Case No. 26 of 2020 is hereby allowed on contest against the Opposite Party in part but with cost. 

           The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,30,600/- only along with an interest @ 8% P.A from 07.12.2019 till the date of realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.