Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Bichitra Nayak, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint petition under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  (the Act), against (1) the Branch Manager, (2) the Area Manager and (3) the Chairman, all 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 OP arising out of non-payment of maturity amounts 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 amount of ₹94,200/- on 22/07/2019 in a Fixed Deposit Scheme for 36 months. The OP-1 issued two certificates on the same date.  The period of investment as stated in these certificates is for 36 months. The total maturity amount as was written in these certificates would become ₹1,32,351/-.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of the maturity date 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 certificate, but assured him that after some months they would refund the total maturity amount through cheques.  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 OP Nos. – 1, 2 & 3 on 23/08/2022 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 ₹1,32,351/- 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 two certificates issued by the OP-1 bearing nos. 715000986366, and 715000986367, both dated 22/07/2019  and (ii) the letter dated 23/08/2022 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 for which the case proceeded ex parte.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit. Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed the 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 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 ₹94,200/- on 22/07/2019 in a scheme at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued two certificates to the complainant/depositor on that date on behalf of their company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (M/s. Sahara India), 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:

            So, on the ‘Maturity Date’, i. e. on 22/07/2022, the complainant would have to receive a total amount of ₹1,32,351/- for his total deposit of ₹94,200/-. Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he 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, rather they assured him that after some months they would disburse the maturity amounts through cheques.  But this could not happen despite the repeated request of the complainant and his letter dated 23/08/2022.

            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” of the OPs as is defined under Section 2(7) of the C. P. Act, 2019 who intended to avail the “Service”, as per Sec. 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019, from the OPs.  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 be 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.  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 amounts 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 stated anything on this matter in his complaint petition as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A. 

            In conclusion of the discussion as stated above we are of the considered view that the complainant has invested his money in specific Schemes of the OPs. The OPs failed to disburse the maturity amounts after the expiry of the plan periods. So, the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant. There is no contrary material to counter or rebut the complaint as the OPs did not contest the case.  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 the matured amounts but failed. This means that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the OPs for which they must compensate. The OPs are liable to return the maturity amounts in accordance with the plan. The complainant claimed simple interest on the maturity amount along with 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 ₹1,32,351/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from the maturity date 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/315/2022 allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the total maturity amount of ₹1,32,351/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the maturity date, i. e. from 22/07/2022,  till the date of this order.  The OPs are also directed to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.

            These directives should be carried out by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receiving this order 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 all the parties of both sides free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.