View 7632 Cases Against Sahara Credit Cooperative Society
View 33202 Cases Against Society
Sayed Zi aul Haque filed a consumer case on 28 Jun 2023 against The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/97/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Aug 2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.
Date of Institution: 17.10.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 03.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 28.06.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 97 / 2019
SAYED Zi A UL HAQUE , S/O: Sayed Za Hurul Haque, At: Raniguda Farm, Po/Dist: Rayagada, State:Odisha, Pin No. 765 001, Cell No.8249335994. (Represented in person) …Complainant
Versus
1.The Branch Manager, Sahara India,
At: R.K.Nagar, Po/Dist: Rayagada.
(None for the O.Ps.)
2.The Manager, Registered office, Saharayn Universal
Multipurpose society Ltd., 195 Zone-1, Maharana Pratap
Nagar, Bhopal- 462011, Madhya Pradesh state and anothers.
(None for the O.Ps.) …Opposite Parties
Present: 1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.
ORDER U/S- 39 R/W SECTION- 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019
Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President. |
Brief facts of the case:-
Case in hand is the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps for non payment of maturity value of certificate No (1).467001885071 Super BB (2) 071024098683 Qshop (3) 562013969808 Q shop with accrued interest which the complainant sought redressal.
The Back ground facts in a nutshell are that the complainant had deposited the following amounts with the O.Ps. organisation under cumulative fixed deposit scheme floated by the O.P. i.e. SUPER BB & Q shops carrying interest. In turn the O.Ps had issued certificates in favour of the complainant (copies of the same are available in District commission office file which are marked as Annexure-I to 3 which are mentioned here in detail.
Sl.No. | Certificate No. Sahara Super BB | Date of deposit. | Date of maturity. | Amount deposited. | Maturity amount. |
1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. |
1. | 467001885071 | 30.12.2017 | 30.12.2020 | 8,850/- | 18,149/- |
2. | 071024098683 | 09.06.2012 |
| 8,850/- |
|
3. | 562013969808 | 9.6.2012 |
| 8,850/- |
|
As per the terms and condition of the deposit the O.P. should have been paid the maturity amounts after the maturity date. But till date the O.Ps have not paid the maturity amount deferring the payment for some or other plea and paid deaf ear. Hence this case. The complainant prays the commission direct the O.Ps to refund the maturity amount besides cost and compensation and such other relief as the commission deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
The O.Ps were not appeared though notices has been duly served resultant made exparte.
Basing on the pleadings of the complainant, this commission framed the following issues for determination.
Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainant including self attested Xerox copies Bond Golden-24 which was issued by the O.Ps in favour of the complainant Marked as Annexure-I to 5).
Issue No.1.
The transaction made between the complainant and O.Ps is clearly one of providing service for ‘consideration’ and the depositor is the relation of consumer and service provider’ under the C.P. Act, 2019.
As such we have least hesitation in holding that the complainant in the present case decidedly a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 corresponding Section-2 (7) (i) & (ii) of C.P.Act, 2019 and the O.Ps were providing ‘Service’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 or Section- 2(42) of the C.P. Act,2019.
Issue No.2 & 3.
It is notin dispute that the complainant had made deposits with the O.Ps.under their schemes. It is also not dispute that the deposits so made by the complainant with the O.P. were to carry interest at the agreed rate and after the date of maturity, the same were payable by the O.Ps to the complainant together with interest. It is also not in dispute that the O.P. has failed to discharge the above said obligation.
The default on the part of the O.Ps to carry out its obligations to repay the principal and/or interest constitutes, in our opinion, ‘deficiency in service’ so as to warrant the filing of a complaint before a Consumer Commission seeking relief under the Act.
It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts/deposits by any financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service.
We have least hesitation in holding that in the given facts, there is ‘deficiency in service’ simultaneously unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
This Commission by perusing all the evidence on record opined that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for which the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed for. Therefore, the complainant would be entitled to the maturity amount, Accordingly the Issue No.2 & 3 are answered.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case we deem that the detention of deposited amount by the Opposite party for such long time amounted to deficiency in service as defined U/S 2(11) of C.P. Act, 2019.
“Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person a pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-
(i)any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer, and
(ii)deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.
The Commission hold that the action of withholding payment by the Opposite party is not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence the complainant deserves to be compensated. In our view the interest of justice would met if this Consumer award accrued interest from the date of maturity till its realization. In view of the above documents relating to the case in hand we allow the above complaint in part.
Hence Order.
ORDER.
Based on aforesaid findings, this Commission allowed the complaint and directed the O.Ps to pay the maturity value and other benefits of certificate No. 467001885071 (2) 071024098683 (3) 562013969808 total maturity inter alia with interest @ Rs. 18% per annum from the respective date of maturity till realization.
. Since this commission award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the O.Ps after the due date of maturity, no further compensation is awarded. The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The OPs are ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Miscellaneous order if any delivered by this commission relating to this case stands vacated.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 28th. Day of June, 2023 under the seal & signature of this Commission.
Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT
A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.
The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
PRESIDENT
PRONOUNCED ON Dtd. 28.06.2023
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.