Orissa

Cuttak

CC/223/2023

Ankita Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Humara India Credit Cooprative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

28 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.223/2023

 

Ankita Ray,

Daughter of Lala Arun Kumar Ray,

Resident of At:Kesharpur,

(Near Mahamaya School),P.O:Buxi Bazar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753001.                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.         The Branch Manager,

  Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

  Cuttack Branch Office,Plot No.515,Jagannath Complex,

  Professor Para,Bajrakabati,P.O:Buxi Bazar,

  Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753001(Odisha)

 

2.         Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

Regd. Office:Mangal Jyoti,101.227/2,

AJC Bose Road,Kolkata-700020(West Bengal),

Represented by its Managing Director.                          ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     30.06.2023

              Date of Order:     28.11.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. A.K.Samal,Advocate.

For the O.Ps.              :                    None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                          

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she invested her money in a fixed deposit scheme namely “F-64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE” floated by the O.Ps and had deposited a sum of Rs.11,000/- on 31.08.2016 to that effect with the O.Ps, where the O.Ps had  assured to give maturity amount of  Rs.22,000/- and the date of maturity was on 31.12.2021.  The certificate bearing no.465002533433 was issued in her favour by the O.Ps.  When no amount was released in her favour after lapse of the maturity date on 31.12.2021, the complainant had met O.P no.1 several times but no result yielded.  She had thereafter issued a legal notice on 10.05.2023 to the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not take any steps.  Ultimately, she had to approach this Commission by filing a complaint petition seeking the matured sum of Rs.22,000/- alongwith 18% interest and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her financial loss mental strain and agony as well as her litigation expenses from the O.Ps.

          In order to support her case she has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Having not contested this case, the O.P no.2 was set exparte vide order dt.15.09.2023 and the O.P no.1 was set exparte vide order dt.06.11.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

 

 

Point no.i.

The O.Ps are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant is a member of the O.Ps.  Hence, the question arose whether any dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps is maintainable before this Commission as there is provision  of Arbitration clause in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainant against the O.Ps. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of his case reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, in the case of the Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others, wherein The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Cooperative Societies Act, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as there is no provision in the said Co-operative Society Act ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. 

At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019.  In Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

In view of the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the case of the complainant is maintainable before this Commission.

Point No.ii.

The averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence, specifically the xerox copy of Fixed Deposit Certificate as filed by her.

Admittedly, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.11,000/- on 31.8.2016 in a fixed deposit scheme called “F-64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE” floated by the O.Ps and the O.Ps had assured her to give maturity amount of Rs.22,000/- on the date of maturity i.e on 31.12.2021. The certificate bearing no.465002533433 was issued in favour of the complainant by the O.Ps to that effect.  When no amount was released in her favour after the maturity period, the complainant being harassed sent a legal notice on 10.5.2023 to the O.Ps and ultimately had to file this case before this Commission for redressal of her grievances.  The complainant was made to understand that she would be getting the matured sum of Rs.22,000/- on 31.12.2021.  But instead of giving the same, the O.ps had turned a deaf ear towards her.  So the O.Ps have definitely committed deficiency in service by not releasing the maturity amount of the fixed deposit of the complainant. 

  In this context, the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2001(3) CPR, 194(NC) in the case of Smt. Kalawati & others Vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft & Credit Society Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that non-refund of fixed deposit after maturity comes under the deficiency in service.  This decision is applicable in the present case.  The complainant had invested money with the O.Ps for earning interest.  The complainant would have earned interest if she would have invested her money in any other private sector or public sector undertaking.  But in the present case the O.Ps did not give the matured amount by which the complainant was deprived of getting her principal amount as well as interest component.   Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the complainant’s matured amount after its maturity period.  This issue is answered in favour of the complainant. 

Point no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the maturity amount in respect of her invested amount as claimed by her.  Hence, it is so ordered;

 

                                                                       ORDER

Case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to pay the matured amount i.e. Rs.22,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 9% from the date of maturity i.e. 31.12.2021 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the mental agony of the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation cost  within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

         

                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                              Member

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President