Date of Filing             :    31 January. 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    11 October, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Mr. Wasim Haider, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (the Act), against (1) the Branch Manager, Shivpur branch, and (2) the Chairman of M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity amount by the OPs.

            The material facts arising out of the complaint petition and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited at the office of the OP-1 a total sum of Rs.2,37,000/- (Rs.1,41,000/- + Rs.96,000/-) on 30/09/2016 in a Fixed Deposit Scheme for 18 months of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated above.  The OP company issued (i) a Certificate for the deposit of Rs.96,000/- bearing Certificate No. 925003725966 having account no.15856206051 and (ii) another Certificate for the deposit of Rs.1,41,000/- bearing Certificate No.925003725973 having account no.15856206058, both on 30/09/2016.  The date of maturity as written in these certificates was 30/03/2018 and the maturity amounts were written as Rs.1,11,648/- and Rs.1,63,983/- respectively totalling Rs. 2,75,631/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he went to the office of the OP- 1 to deposit the original certificates and other relevant documents, but the OP- 1 did not receive these documents, instead assured him that after a few months they would disburse the assured maturity amount through cheques.  But that did not happen.  Then he sent a letter to the OP-1 on 23/5/2018 requesting to disburse the maturity amount immediately.  This time also his effort could not bring any fruitful result as the OPs did not respond to his request. He then filed a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & FBP, Howrah, on 10/9/2018 requesting to resolve the matter through mediation.  In a tripartite meeting at the office of the CA & FBP at Howrah a representative of the OP company appeared and by submitting a letter dated 05/10/2018 admitted the fact of non disbursement of the maturity amounts and assured of payment the same to the complainant within a short period of time.  But that also did not happen.  Finding no other alternative way, the complainant filed this instant complaint through his Ld. Advocate before this Forum/ Commission praying to direct the OP company: (i) to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment, (ii) to pay the total maturity amount of Rs.2,75,631/- together with 18% interest from the maturity date till realisation, (iii) litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and other relief(s) as this Commission may deem fit.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) two Certificates bearing No. 925003725966 and 925003725973 issued by the OP company on 30/09/2016, (ii) the letter issued by him to OP- 1 on 23/5/2018 and (iii) the letter dated 05/10/2018 issued by OP-1 as annexures to the complaint petition.

            Notices were served upon the OPs, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OPs appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Thereafter complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  OPs did not file any questionnaire nor had they filed any Evidence. Then the 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 OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant by disbursing the maturity amount for which the complainant 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 amount of Rs.2,37,000/- on 30/09/2016 in the Scheme named “F2 SAHARA.A.SELECT” Scheme of M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP company as stated herein above, for a period of 18 months and the company issued two Certificates to this effect bearing Nos. 925003725966 and 925003725973 for payment of Rs.96,000/- and Rs.1,41,000/- respectively. The allotted account nos. are 15856206051 and 15856206058 respectively as stated in these Certificates. The date of opening these account was 30/09/2016 and the maturity date was fixed on 30/36/2018 each. The maturity amount of these certificates are written as Rs.1,11,648/- and Rs.1,63,983/- respectively.  Complainant stated that after the maturity date the OP company failed to make payment of the maturity amounts.  Complainant alleged that despite his repeated efforts OPs had not disbursed the total maturity amount of Rs. 2,75,631/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            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. 

            A question now arises that whether the complainant is a Consumer or not as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?  The facts state that complainant deposited his hard money in a specific scheme of the OPs and the OPs 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” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Sec 2(7) of the C. P. Act, 2019] who availed “Service”, as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the Act [Sec. 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019] from the OPs/OP company.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Hon’ble National Commission where it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a company for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act of that company.  Here the the company in question is the Service Provider as defined in the Act whose service is availed by the Depositor/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 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 branch office of the OP company and send letter to the OP-1, sought help of a government authority who organised a meeting for median, to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OP company had issued notice to the depositor/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., except stating that he went to deposit the certificates and other documents to the OP-1 after the date of maturity but failed.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amounts till filing this instant complaint for which he has come before this Forum/Commission and the OP company is deficient in providing ‘service’ as they have not returned the promised maturity amounts.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim the maturity amount and the OP company is liable to refund the maturity amounts.  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 five years beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with 18% 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.  The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.8,000/- as litigation cost as he is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission (Forum) to get relief of his grievance.   

            Hence, it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case No. CC/33/2019  be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the maturity amount of          Rs. 2,75,631/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of maturity, i. e. from 30/03/2018, till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  They are also directed to pay Rs.8,000/- 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.