Date of Filing             :    27 September, 2022.

Date of Judgement    :    29 February, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Amarjit Jaiswal, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) against (1) the Branch Manager, (ii) the General Manager and (iii) the Charman, all of M/s. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose 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 maturity amount after the expiry of the plan period.

            The factual Matrix of the complaint, as emerged from the complaint petition and documents annexed with it, is that the Complainant deposited on 15/01/2019 an amount of ₹50,000/- in Super BB Scheme of the OPs. After receiving this amount the OP-1 issued four certificates to the depositor/complainant on that date for availing Services/Goods/Products from the OPs and their business associates within the plan period of 36 months. Complainant stated that the OPs failed to provide any services/goods/products to the complainant as per their specification within the plan period.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of 36 months he visited the office of the OP-1 to deposit the original certificate and other relevant documents. But the OP-1 did not receive the certificates, but assured him that after some months they would refund the redemption amount.  Some months had passed but he could not get back the maturity amount despite his repeated visits to the office of the OPs as they failed to refund. He then sent a letter to all the OPs on 18/05/2022 requesting them to return the redemption/benefited amount 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 ₹1,00,000/- for his physical and mental harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to refund the redemption amount of ₹1,22,788/- as per rules and regulations together with interest, (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 4 (four) certificates issued by the OP-1 being nos. 467005661900, 467005661901, 467005661902 and 467005661903, all dated 15/01/2019 and (ii) the letter dated 18/05/2022 issued by him to the OPs along with the postal track reports as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notices were served upon all 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 thereby the case proceeded ex parte.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed his 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 ₹50,000/- on 15/01/2019 at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued 4 (four) certificates to the complainant/depositor on that date on behalf of their company, i. e. M/s. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., having its registered office at 195, Zone–1, in front of D. B. Nagar, P.O.–Subhash Nagar, P.S.–M. P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh–462011, the details of these certificates are as follows:

            It is found that each certificate is attached with a Receipt wherein it is stated that the respective amounts were received from Sri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal as a sum of contribution under “Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.” for the object(s) of the society mentioned in the registered bye-laws of the society.  Each receipt is attached with, which the complainant stated as, the certificate wherein it is written as: “Shri/Smt./Ms. MANOJ KUMAR JAISWAL  on the basis of association with us/business associates/members and various other factors our esteemed members shall be enrolled with 192 (or 177) joining points”.    This means that for ₹13,000/- enrolment point is 192 whereas for ₹12,000/- this becomes 177 points.  It is also stated therein that: “Joining points can further be accumulated up to 2 times/3 times/ 4 times by availing the goods/services of this society/business associates as per the objects of the society. ……   Members shall be free to redeem his/her accumulated joining points after expiry of 36 months from the date of joining based on conversion rate ………     On full utilisation of products/services and various other factors members can further accumulate maximum 319 (or 294) joining points, which could be approximately amount to ₹31,924/- (or ₹29,470/-)  depending upon the various factors at the time of redemption.” (Emphasis provided.).  Contribution Features are given on the reverse of each such receipt and certificate.  As the complainant stated that the OPs or their business associates failed to provide any goods/services within the plan period so, he was entitled to get maximum redemption amount as stated in these certificates.  We are then refrained ourselves from discussing the Contribution Features. 

            Complainant stated that he repeatedly requested the OPs to return the redemption amounts but each time he returned empty handed.  His efforts to deposit the original certificates along with other relevant papers were unsuccessful and thereby he has not received his desired money.

            As the OPs did not turn up to contest this case we have no other alternative materials to counter or rebut the complaint.  We thus come to the conclusion that the complainant deposited his money with the intention to avail some services from the OPs and the OPs failed to either provide him any goods or services or returned his invested money.  So the complainant, who is termed as a ‘Consumer’ as is defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 intended to avail the ‘Service’, as is defined under Section 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019, of the OPs and the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant/depositor.  So deficiency of service has been occurred from the part of the OPs for which they should compensate.  Complainant prayed for ₹1,00,000/- as compensation from the OPs together with interest on the redemption amount of ₹1,22,788/- till realisation.  Here we failed to understand how we can conclude that the total redemption amount should be ₹1,22,788/-  as it is stated in these certificates that these are the approximate accumulated redemption amount depending on various factors.  It is a settled principle that when award is given in the form of interest then awarding compensation will be unjustified.  Hence we think interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the deposited amount till realisation will be justified the complainant is entitled to receive.  We also think the complainant is entitled to receive ₹5,000/- as litigation cost from the OPs as he 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/260/2022 allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant ₹50,000/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the date of deposit, i. e. from 15/01/2019 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.