Date of Filing : 18 December, 2020.
Date of Judgement : 03 September, 2024.
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Dey, Hon’ble Member.
This case arises when Sri Binod Kumar Jaiswal, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) against (1) the Branch Manager and (ii) the Area Manager and (iii) the Chairman of M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (M/s. Sahara India), hereinafter collectively called as the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity amount after the expiry of the plan period.
The factual Matrix of the complaint, as emerged from the complaint petition and documents annexed with it is that the Complainant invested on 01/12/2018 a total of ₹3,20,000/- in a scheme of the OPs named as F2 SAHARA.A,SELECT. After receiving this amount the OP-1 issued 7 (seven) certificates on that date. The period of each investment is for 18 months and the date of maturity is written as 01/06/2020 in each certificate. The total maturity amount as was written in these certificates would become ₹3,72,160/-. Complainant alleged that after the expiry of 18 months he visited the office of the OP-1 to deposit the original certificates and other relevant documents. But the OP-1 did not receive the certificates, but assured him that after some months they would refund the total maturity amount through cheque. Some months had passed but he could not get back his money as the OPs failed to refund. He then sent a letter to the OPs on 10/11/2020 requesting them to disburse the total maturity amount as per the scheme which also yielded no result though the OPs received his letter. Finding no other way to get back his money complainant filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OPs: (a) to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- for his mental and financial harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to disburse the total maturity amount of ₹3,72,160/- as per the scheme together with interest from the date of maturity till realisation, (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation, (d) litigation cost of ₹30,000/-and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission may deem fit and proper as per law.
Complainant filed copies of (i) the seven certificates issued by the OP-1 bearing nos. 925007771671, 925007771672, 925007771673, 925007771674, 925007771675, 925007771676 and 925007771677, all dated 01/12/2018 and (ii) the letter dated 10/11/2020 issued by him to the OPs along with the postal track reports 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. None of the OPs appeared nor did they file their written version and consequently the case proceeded ex parte. Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit. Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed his Brief Notes on Argument. OPs did not participate in the 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 for which he is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
The material facts of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents are that the complainant had deposited a total sum of ₹3,20,000/- on 01/12/2018 at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued seven certificates to the complainant/depositor on that date on behalf of their company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., having its regd. office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226 024. The details of these certificates are as given below:
Sl No | Scheme Name | Date of Deposit | Amount (₹) | Certificate No. | Account No | Maturity Date | Maturity amount (₹) |
01 | F2 SAHARA.A, SELECT | 01/12/2018 | 50,000 | 925007771671 | 15857207322 | 01/06/2020 | 58,150 |
02 | 50,000 | 925007771672 | 15857207323 | 58,150 |
03 | 50,000 | 925007771673 | 15857207324 | 58,150 |
04 | 50,000 | 925007771674 | 15857207325 | 58,150 |
05 | 50,000 | 925007771675 | 15857207326 | 58,150 |
06 | 50,000 | 925007771676 | 15857207327 | 58,150 |
07 | 20,000 | 925007771677 | 15857207328 | 23,260 |
| | | ₹3,20,000 | | | | ₹3,72,160 |
On the reverse page of each certificate ‘Scheme Features’ has been written explaining that the depositor would be paid a sum of ₹5,815/- for his/her deposit of ₹5,000/- after the expiryof the pln period of 18 months. like Maturity, Death Help Amount of Dealth Help and Children Welfare Plan.
Complainant alleged that after the date of maturity he frequently visited the office of the OP – 1 intending to submit the original certificates and other relevant documents, but the OP – 1 did not accept them instead assured him that after some months they would disburse the maturity amounts through cheque. But this could not happen despite the repeated request of the complainant and his letter dated 10/11/2020.
As the OPs did not turn up to contest this case, so we have no other alternative materials to counter or rebut the complaint.
A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019? The facts in this case state us that the complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OPs and the OPs assured a higher return which implies that the OPs promised to give service to the depositor in the form of monetary benefit. This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” as is defined under Section 2(7) of the C. P. Act, 2019 who intended to avail “Service”, as per Sec. 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019, from the OP. There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a company/society for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer, under the C. P. Act, of that company/society. Here the cooperative society in question is the Service Provider whose service is intended to avail by the Depositor/Consumer. So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of the financial transaction like this case. The OP 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 OPs who were running their business with such offers. So question of commercial transaction does not arise. Complainant stated that he requested the OPs repeatedly to refund the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OPs had issued notice to the depositor/complainant after the expiry of the plan period to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OPs did not contest this case and the complainant has not produced anything before us in this matter.
In conclusion of the discussion as stated above we are of the view that the complainant has invested his money in a specific Scheme of the OPs. The OPs failed to disburse the maturity amount after the expiry of the plan period. So, they are deficient in rendering service to the complainant. The complainant himself stated that he tried to deposit all the papers and documents to the OP-1 and also sent letter to the OPs with a hope to get back his deposited money but failed. This means that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the OPs which they must compensate. The OPs are liable to return the maturity amount in accordance with the plan. The complainant claimed simple interest on the maturity amount along with a compensation of ₹50,000/-. It is a settled principle that when award is given in the form of interest then awarding both interest and compensation will be unjustified. We think payment of the total maturity amount of ₹3,72,160/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity, i. e. from 01/06/2020, will serve the purpose in this case. The OPs are also liable to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as the complainant has been compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get his grievance be redressed.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/273/2020 is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the total maturity amount of ₹3,72,160/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from 01/06/2020 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost within the abovementioned time period failing which the complainant will have the liberty to take recourse under the law.
Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Member.
