Orissa

Cuttak

CC/165/2022

Ramesh Chandra Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

21 Jun 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.165/2022

 

Ramesh Chandra Rout,

S/O: Krutibash Rout,

At:Gobindapur,Kuthery,Kendrapada-756061,

Odisha,At present R.C.Rout,

C/O:Chita Ranjan Kar,

Mundamal,Choudwar,Pin-754025,Cuttack.             ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

        Sahara India

        Near Gandhi Chhak,Choudwar,Pin-754025,Cuttack.

 

2.      The Zonal Manager,

         Sahara India, Plot No.80,NearEmpire,Sahid Nagar,

         BBSR-751007.

.

3.       The Chairman,

          Sahara India, Gomati Nagar,Lucknow-226010.

 

4.      The Chairman,

          HumaraIndia Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

             Regd. Office: Mangal Jyoti,101,227/2,

             AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,Pin-700020

             (West Bengal)                                                                      ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     16.08.2022

              Date of Order:    21.06.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                                         

          The case of the complainant in short is that he had invested money by purchasing seventeen Fixed Deposit Certificates of two different schemes from the O.Ps on payment of Rs.4,18,635/-.  out of which six nos. of Fixed Deposit certificates are of “F48 Golden In” scheme and rest 11 nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates are of “F64 Golden A Double” scheme of the O.Ps.  The details of the certificates such as Account No., Scheme, Deposited/Invested amount, maturity amount, date of maturityare reproduced below in a tabular form.

Account No. Scheme	Deposited amount	Maturity Amount	Date of maturity
56926902046 (F48 Golden In)	18,000	31,986	15.3.2021
56926902047 (F48 Golden In)	18,000	31,986	15.3.2021
56926902048 (F48 Golden In)	18,000	31,986	15.3.2021
56926902049 (F48 Golden In)	18,000	31,986	15.3.2021
56926902050 (F48 Golden In)	18,000	31,986	15.3.2021
56926902051 (F48 Golden In)	10,000	17,770	15.3.2021
13526420196 (F-64 Golden A Double)	29,037	58,074	19.02.2022
13526420197 (F-64 Golden A Double	10,523	21,046	19.2.2022
13526420198 (F-64 Golden A Double	35,190	70,380	19.2.2022
13526420199 (F-64 Golden A Double	29,378	58,756	19.2.2022
13526420200 (F-64 Golden A Double)	1,16,507	2,33,014	19.2.2022
56926404978 (F-64 Golden A Double	17,000	34,000	31.12.2021
56926404979 (F-64 Golden A Double	16,000	32,000	31.12.2021
56926404980 (F-64 Golden A Double	16,000	32,000	31.12.2021
56926404981 (F-64 Golden A Double	16,000	32,000	31.12.2021
56926404982 (F-64 Golden A Double	16,000	32,000	31.12.2021
56926404983 (F-64 Golden A Double	17,000	34,000	31.12.2021

 

On maturity, the complainant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.8,14,970/- towards the maturity amount of allthe Fixed Deposit Certificates.      After the maturity date, the complainant in order to get his matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions  but the O.Ps did not release his maturity amount.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay his maturity amount in the certificates calculated as  Rs.8,14,970/- as well as Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and harassment, litigation cost, besides other reliefs which is deemed to be fit and proper.

          The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps did not appear.  Hence, they were set exparte vide order dt.6.12.2022.

  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  and if they had practised any unfair                   trade?

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

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 in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainant against the O.Ps.  In this regard there is a pertinent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of the 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.  There is another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue at hand. reported in (2022)6 SCC,496 in the case of Voda Phone, Idea Cellular Ltd. Vrs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if there is provision U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, the aggrieved person can approach the Consumer Commission as the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is not ousted U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 

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 his complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by him.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased seventeen number of Fixed Deposit Certificates of two different schemes namely “F48 Golden In” and “F64 Golden A Double”as mentioned in his complaint petition on payment of Rs.4,18,635/-.  After maturity the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount.Thus in total, the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.8,14,970/- towards the maturity amount.  It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased seventeen Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Ps on payment of Rs.4,18,635/-.  The maturity date of the said certificates/bonds was clearly mentioned in the said certificates.     The O.Ps had not given the complainant the matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainant had approached the O.Ps many times to get his maturity amount but they did not give the matured amount of his certificates, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, there is 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 he would have invested his 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 his 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 the Fixed Deposit Certificates as claimed by him.  The complainant has claimed the maturity amount as Rs.8,14,970/- towards the seventeen Fixed Deposit Certificates which is found to be correct from the copy of the Fixed Deposit Certificates filed by the complainant.  As such, the complainant is entitled to get in total Rs.8,14,970/- towards the maturity amount in all his fixed deposit certificates.    Hence, it is so ordered;

 

                                    ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay  the complainant the total matured  value towards all the seventeen nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates amounting to Rs.8,14,970/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from their respective date ofmaturity till the amount is quantified.   The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                        Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President.