Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    13 December, 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    12 September, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Md. Salim Midday, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after called the said Act, against the Branch Manager, Domjur branch of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, hereinafter called the Opposite Party or OP, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP arising out of non-payment of maturity amount by the OP company.

            The material facts of the complaint and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.2,41,400/- in the various deposit schemes of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated hereinabove, on different dates. The OP company opened 03 (three) accounts for these deposits in favour of the complainant and the maturity period of two accounts were fixed for 12 months and for the remaining account was for 60 months. The total maturity amount, as per statement of the complaint, would be Rs.3,24,622/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity dates of these schemes he repeatedly requested the OP-1 on various occasions, viz. on 07/01/2018, 07/08/2018 and so on, for disbursement of the maturity amounts but every time the OP company did not pay any heed to his requests.  Finding no other alternative way he came to this Forum/Commission  praying to direct the OP company: (i) to refund the total maturity amount of Rs.3,24,622/- along with interest, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- causing physical and mental harassment and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Complainant filed copies of (i) 3 (three) Pass Books issued by the OP company and (ii) the complainant’s EPIC card as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notice was served upon the OP, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OP appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Later, the OP failed to file any questionnaire and 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 OP is 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 a total sum of Rs.2,41,400/- on different dates and the OP company opened 03 (three) accounts and issued 3 Pass Books to the complainant.  Out of these accounts 2 were opened under ‘Sahara Minor’ Scheme and one under ‘SAHARA.M.BENEFIT’ Schemes of M/s. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, the OP as stated hereinabove, having it’s registered office at Sahara India Bhawan,  1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226 024.  The tenure of the first two accounts were 12 months each and the remaining one was for 60 months.  The details of deposits and the corresponding Pass Book/ Certificates issued by the OP company stating the opening and maturity dates are given below:

            So, according to the statement, complainant deposited total Rs.2,41,400/- on different dates in his various accounts.  Now, let us take one of the ‘Sahara Minor’ accounts for our analysis having account no. 66206700462, OP company issued a Pass Book bearing no. 214007732096 on 07/08/2017. Maturity date was written as 07/08/2018, Denomination: Rs.50/-.  In the Scheme Feature it is written that if denomination is Rs.50/- and the principal amount is Rs.15,000/-, then Bonus will be Rs.203/- and thereby the maturity amount will be Rs.15,203, taking 25 days in a month.  Complainant deposited different amounts on various dates, for example on 07/8/17, 15/9/17 & 31/10/17,  he deposited Rs.50/-, Rs.600/- & Rs.1,200/- respectively in this account.  So, his denominations were not at par of this account which would be Rs.50/- per month.  He paid, according to this Pass Book,  Rs.17,750/- upto 31/07/18.  In the ‘Important Instructions’ portion of this Pass Book it is written in Point No. 8 as: ‘Entries made in the Pass Book are for information purpose only’.  In Point No. 9 it is written as: ‘No claim shall be entertained on the basis of these entries.’  In Point No. 10 it is written that payment will be made on the basis of receipts only.  During deposition of money the authorised centre would issue receipts for such payments which the complainant has not annexed with the complaint. Hence, we can assume that the complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs.17,750/- in this account upto 31/7/2018 which should be proved by the complainant during disbursement.  In case of ‘SAHARA.M.BENEFIT’, complainant’s total deposit was Rs.2,11,500/- from 07/01/2013 up to 29/12/2017, i.e. 47 installments.  Here, the denomination was written as Rs.4,500/- and the complainant paid regular instalments by paying Rs.4,500/- regularly. There is no ‘Scheme Feature’ submitted for this scheme but the same ‘Important Instructions’ are there.  So there is no scope of calculating the matured amount for this account.

            In their written version OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition. They alleged that the complainant failed to submit the KYC and other documents for his claim for the maturity amount. The OP stated that this complaint was imaginary and liable to be dismissed.  But they failed to establish their statement by explaining it with reasons.  No document has been filed by them in support of their claim.  Here, it is to be noted that the OP has confessed in their written version that there was a ‘maturity amount’, so there must be a time limit after which this maturity amount was to be disbursed to the customer/complainant.  But the OP did not specify, even the complainant had not submitted any document, about the maturity amount.  However, he must expect the ‘maturity amount’ after the time period fixed for these schemes.  Here, according the complaint, the complainant’s repeated efforts to get back the maturity amount from the OP company became fruitless. Complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests OP company did not disburse the maturity amount of Rs.2,58,621/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protetion Act, 1986?  The facts state that complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OP and the OP 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” defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 who availed “Service”, as defined under section 2(1)(o) of this Act, of the OP company.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission where it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a bank or a non-banking financial company (NBFC) for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act under that bank or NBFC.  Here the bank or the NBFC, as the case may be, is the Service Provider as defined in the Act 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. 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 office of the OP company frequently to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP company had issued notice to the complainant after the date of maturity to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OP company 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 for which he has come before this Commission and the OP company is deficient in providing proper service as they have not returned the promised maturity amount.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim the maturity amount and the OP company is liable to refund the maturity amount.  However, the the maturity amount cannot be ascertained in each scheme.  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 four years beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with interest on the maturity amount, but keeping in mind the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019], I think awarding interest @ 9% on the amounts paid in the three accounts with effect from the date of last payment will be sufficient enough as a compensation.  He 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 with the help of this Commission.

            Hence,

                                        it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/399/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant Rs.2,41,400/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of last payment in the respective schemes till the date of this order within 60 days.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- 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.