Date of Filing             :    25 May, 2022.

Date of Judgement    :    15 March, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) against (1) the Branch Manager, (2) The Area Manager and (ii) the Charman of M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (M/s. Sahara India), hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of pre-stage maturity amount.

            The brief fact of this case, as emerged from the complaint petition and documents annexed with it is that the Complainant invested on 23/03/2012 a sum of ₹50,000/- in a scheme of the OPs. After receiving this amount the OP-1 issued a certificate on that date.  The period of this investment is for 180 months and the date of maturity is written as 23/03/2027 in this certificate. The total maturity amount as was written in the certificate would become ₹3,27,000/-.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of 120 months she wanted to surrender the certificate due to financial crisis for the educational purpose of her children and for this she visited the office of the OP-1 to deposit the original certificate and other relevant documents. But the OP-1 did not receive the certificate, but assured her that after some months they would refund the total maturity amount through cheque. Complainant stated that according to the scheme plan she was entitled to get ₹1,69,000/- as the pre-maturity amount.  Some months had passed but she could not get back her money as the OPs failed to refund. She then sent a letter to the OPs on 04/04/2022 requesting them to disburse the maturity amount as per the scheme which also yielded no result though the OPs received her letter.  Finding no other way to get back her money complainant filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OPs: (a) to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for his mental and financial harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to disburse the pre-maturity amount of ₹1,69,000/- as per the scheme together with interest from the date of application for withdrawal 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 the certificate issued by the OP-1 bearing no. 411004372295, dated 23/03/2012 and (ii) the letter dated 04/04/2022 issued by her 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 eventually the case proceeded ex parte. Then the complainant filed her Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed her 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 OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which she 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 document is that the complainant had deposited a sum of ₹50,000/- on 23/03/2012 at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued a certificate 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 Scheme name, as is written in this certificate bearing Certificate No. 411004372295, is SAHARA.U.GOLDEN.  Account number has been allotted for this certificate is 15854204045 with marking as Option [D], Maturity amount has been written as ₹3,27,000/- and the Maturity date is written as 23/03/2027.

                On the reverse page of this certificate ‘Scheme Features’ has been written in three parts : (i) Maturity Withdrawal, (ii) Pre-stage Maturity and (iii) Loan Against Deposit.   As the complainant opted for Pre-stage Withdrawal let us concentrate our discussion on this part.  In case of Pre-stage Withdrawal it is written there that:

            “The Member Account Holder can take pre-stage maturity payment prior to the declared tenure, subject to completion of 120 months from the date of opening the Account, and will be paid within 30 to 35 days from the date of application, as per the following Chart:

            This Chart has been replaced by an alleged Stamp embossed in the reverse page of this Certificate as :

            If this revised Chart is true then the complaint would get ₹1,69,000/- after the expiry of 120 months.  We have no document which could tell us that the complainant applied for Pre-Stage Maturity Withdrawal after the 120 months from the date of opening this Account, i. e. after 23/03/2022, or not.  But from the statement of the complaint petition it can be said that the complainant intended to pre-mature withdrawal which became unsuccessful as the OP-1 did not receive the documents and assured her that after some months they would disburse the payable amount and after a lapse of some months she sent a letter dated 04/04/2022 which is beyond 120 months from 23/03/2012. This time the OPs did not respond to her request.

            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 her 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 she 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 120 months from the date of opening of the account for premature withdrawal to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OPs did not contest this case and the complainant has not stated anything on this matter in her complaint petition as well as in her evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.   

            In conclusion of our discussion as stated above we are of the view that the complainant has invested her money in a specific Scheme of the OPs. The OPs failed to disburse the pre-mature withdrawal amount after 120 month as speculated in this scheme. So, they are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  There is no contrary material to counter or rebut the content of the complaint as the OPs had not contested the case. So, we think that the OPs are liable to return the premature amount as per the scheme. The complainant claimed simple interest on ₹1,69,000/-  along with a compensation of ₹1,00,000/-. But 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 ₹1,69,000/-  together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of completion of 120 months from the date of opening the account, i. e. from 23/03/2022, 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/134/2022 is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the pre-stage maturity amount of ₹1,69,000/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from 23/03/2022 till the date of this order within 45 days from the date of receiving 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 entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realisation.

            Let a copy of this order be issued, on demand, to both the parties free of cost. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.