Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    09 June, 2022.

Date of Judgement    :    11 September, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Amar Kumar Jaisw @ Jaiswal, 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, Shivpur branch, (2) The Area Manager,  and (3) the Chairman, all 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 OP company.

            The material facts of the complaint and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.1,66,975/- on 28/04/2018 and on 30/03/2019 (Rs.10893/- x 5 on 28/04/2018 and Rs.19,000/- x 5 & Rs.17,510/- on 30/03/2019) in the Fixed deposit scheme of  M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., the OP as stated above, for a period of 36 months.  The OP company issued 11 (eleven) Certificates for these amount of deposit on those dates having different Certificates Nos. and the total maturity amount became Rs.2,22,246/- with maturity dates on 28/04/2021 & 30/03/2022.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he went to the office of the OP- 1 to deposit the original certificates and other relative documents, but the OP- 1 did not receive these certificates and documents but assured him that after a few months later they would issue the assured maturity amount through cheque.  But that did not happen.  Then he sent a letter addressing the Branch Manager and the Chairman of the OP company, i. e. the OP – 1 & 3 as stated hereinabove, on 18/05/2022 requesting them to disburse the maturity amount immediately.  This time also his efforts could not bring any fruitful result as the OPs did not respond to his request. Finding no other alternative way, he filed this instant complaint before this Commission praying to direct the OP company: (i) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- causing physical and mental harassment, (ii) to pay the maturity amount of Rs.2,22,246/- together with simple interest from the maturity date till realisation, (iii) litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- and other relief(s) as this Commission may deem fit.

Complainant filed copies of (i) 11 (eleven) Certificates issued by the OP company and (ii) the letter issued by him to OP- 1 & 3 on 18/05/2022 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 appeared on behalf of the OPs nor any written version was filed on behalf of them and consequently the case proceeded to ex parte hearing.  Thereafter complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  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 by way of 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.1,66,975/- on 28/04/2019 and 30/03/2019 in the Scheme named and styled as “SAHARA WORKERS SC” Scheme of M/s. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, the OP company as stated hereinabove, for 36 months and the company issued 11 (eleven) Certificates to this effect.  The details of deposits and the the corresponding certificates issued by the OP company stating the maturity amount and dates of maturity are given below:

            This table shows that the complainant would get a total maturity amount of Rs.2,22,246/- after the dates of maturity. Complainant stated that after the maturity dates the OP company failed to make payment of the maturity amount.  Complainant alleged that despite his repeated efforts OP company did not disburse the total maturity amount of Rs.2,22,246/- in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises that whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection 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” as 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 of 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 Dipositor/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 them 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, 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.  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 beyond the maturity date.  Complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- 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.  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 No. CC/149/2022 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.2,22,246/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from date of maturity of respective deposits till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The Opposite Parties 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.