Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Smt. Sikha Tarafder, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, herein after called the said Act, against (1) the Branch Manager, Shibpur, of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., 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 Rs.24,000/- in the Fixed deposit scheme of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP as stated above, hereinafter called the said scheme.  The OP company issued two Certificates for deposit of Rs.12,000/- each bearing Certificate Nos. 914000088366 & 914000088367 on 31/06/2014.  The date of maturity as written in these certificates was 31/06/2020 and the maturity amount was written as Rs.24,984/- each.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date she repeatedly requested the OP on various occasions, viz. on 30/06/2020, 30/05/2021 and so on, for disbursement of the maturity amount but every time the OP company did not pay any heed to her requests.  Finding no other alternative way she came before this Commission  praying to direct the OP company: (i) to refund the total maturity amount of Rs.49,968/- along with interest, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- causing physical and mental harassment and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Complainant filed copies of (i) Certificates bearing Nos. 914000088366 & 914000088367 issued by the OP company, (ii) two receipts for payment of Rs.12,000/- each and a receipt for Admission & Share Capital Fee, (iii) two application forms for deposits  and (iv) Aadhaar Card of the complainant 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.  None appeared on behalf of the OP nor any written version was filed on their behalf thereby the case proceeded to ex parte hearing.  Thereafter complainant filed her Evidence on Affidavit.  Thereafter ex parte 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 OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.  Original receipts and other documents issued by the OP company are taken into consideration for reaching to final decision.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            Before starting our discussion it is to be noted that the Surname of the complainant and her husband are written in the complaint petition, Evidence on Affidavit and Brief Notes on Argument as ‘Tarafder’, whereas the Certificate issued by the OP company and AADHAAR Card bear the Surname of the complainant as “TARAFDAR’. Her signature also shows ‘TARAFDAR’.   We are considering the name of the complainant as Sikha Tarafder and Sikha Tarafdar are the same and as one person.  It is also to be noted that this complaint was admitted after considering this discrepancy.

            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.24,000/- on 30/06/2014 in the Scheme named and styled as “F6 SAHARA.H.SHINE” Scheme of M/s. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, the OP as stated herein above, for SIX years and the company issued two Certificates to this effect bearing Nos.914000088366 & 914000088367 for payment of Rs.12,000/- each.  The allotted account nos. are 15855103355 & 15855103356 respectively as stated in these Certificates. Three receipts of payment had been issued by the OP, two for receipt of Rs.12,000/- each and one for payment of Admission Fee & Share Capital.  The date of opening these accounts was 30/06/2014 and the maturity date was fixed on 30/06/2020. The maturity amount of these two certificates are written as Rs.24,984/- each.  Complainant stated that after the maturity date the OP company failed to make payment of the maturity amount.  Complainant alleged that despite her repeated requests OP company did not disburse the maturity amount of Rs.49,968/- in her favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protetion Act, 2019?  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(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 who availed “Service”, as defined under section 2(42) of this Act, from 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 to 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 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 her 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 she 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, nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in her complaint petition as well as in her evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount for which she 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.  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 in addition to the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with 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.  She is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost as she 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/119/2022 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.49,968/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 30/06/2020 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  They are 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. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.