Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    08 April, 2019.

Date of Final Order :    20 February, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Shibnath Dutta, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) against (1) the Chairman, Sahara India Commercial Corporation & Sahara Credit Corporation, (2) Sri Alok Sankar Prasad, Branch Manager  and (3) the Regional Manager, 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 by the OP company.

            The material facts of the complaint and the annexed documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited ₹10,000/- on 11/04/2008 in a fixed deposit scheme named Sahara Unique of the OP company namely Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and also opened an account under the Daily Deposit Scheme of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. on 22/04/2014 and deposited total ₹50,000/- up to 31/07/2017.  The OP company issued a Certificate for deposit of ₹10,000/- bearing Certificate no. 917002928955 on 11/04/2008. For the Daily Deposit Scheme the OP company issued a Pass Book bearing no. 2440 00043867.   The tenure of the Daily Deposit Scheme was for 40 (forty) months.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity dates he contacted with the branch office of the OP company for receiving the maturity amounts, but the branch office only assured him to refund the maturity amounts, but no refund was actually made.  Lastly on 11/04/2018 he rushed to the branch office of the OP company with his earnest request to return the maturity amount which was also not fulfilled by the OP company. Complainant alleged that he has paid all the money to the OP – 2 who had convinced him that he should invest his money in the OP company.  Being aggrieved for not getting back his hard earned money after maturity, the complainant filed the instant complaint through his Ld. Advocate praying to direct the OPs to refund the total maturity amount of ₹85,490/- together with a compensation of ₹85,000/- for causing his mental harassment and agony and a litigation cost of ₹10,000/-

Complainant filed copies of (i) Certificate bearing No. 917002928955 issued by the OP company on 11/04/2008, (ii) copies of incomplete Withdrawal Slip and incomplete Maturity Claim Form and (iii) the Pass Book bearing No. 2440 00043867 issued to him for Daily Deposit Scheme 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.  OPs appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  OPs then had failed to file interrogatories nor did they file Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in details and the complainant filed his Brief Notes on Argument. OPs did not participate in the argument, nor did they file any 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 OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant by way of disbursing the maturity amount for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹10,000/- on 05/04/2008 in the Scheme named and styled as “SAHARA UNIQUE” Scheme of M/s. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LIMITED, the OP company as stated herein above.  We have noted that the complainant has omitted the word ‘Limited’ from the name of the OP company in the Cause Title in this case.  The OP company issued a Certificate in this effect bearing No. 917002928955 for payment of ₹10,000/- stating that they received this amount ‘under Sahara Unique Scheme, initially a total sum of ₹10,000/- for Avail Products or services of the Company and/or its business associates or purchase of immovable property (housing unit/commercial unit) provided by Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. as per the terms and conditions of the Company.’

            For the Daily Deposit Scheme, the complainant has not filed the relevant page where the account no. date of opening the account and time period is written. However, this Pass Book having Pass Book No. 2440 00043867  has been issued by Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., which shows that the complainant has deposited a total sum of ₹50,000/- from 22/04/2014 up to 31/07/2017. Here also we have noted that the complainant has omitted the word ‘Limited’ from the name of the OP company in the Cause Title in this case.

            The certificate, issued by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., bears no maturity value.  On the reverse page of this certificate the concept of Credit Value is written giving example such as in case the advance of ₹5,000/- remains un-utilised for 60 or more months the credit value against availing products/services is written as: ₹8520/- for 60 months, ₹9,610/- for 72 months etc. In the case of Daily Deposit Scheme no maturity amount is written there.  We find that the complainant deposited ₹50,000/- from 22/04/2014 up to 31/07/2017.  Complainant’s allegation is that after the maturity period he repeatedly visited the branch office of the OP company to get back the maturity amount but failed.

            In the written version the OPs contention is that the instant complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It is stated that the OPs have no ill-motive or malafide intention to harass the depositor/complainant nor had they any intention to delay in disbursing the maturity amount. It was the complainant who failed to submit the KYC documents and original certificates and for this reason they could not disburse the maturity amount. They also stated in their written version that there is dispute between the company and the SEBI and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The Hon’ble Apex Court imposed Embargo on the movable and immovable properties of the Sahara Group on 21/11/2013.  Subsequently the OP companies, i. e. the Sahara Group, filed a petition praying to lift the Embargo before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was rejected on 19/06/2017.  So, according to their pledge, for such Embargo they could not disburse the maturity amount.  But we do not find any reason why the OPs collected money from the depositor even after the rejection of the plea to lift the Embargo by the Hon’ble Apex Court having fully aware that they could not disburse the collected amounts under such situation. So, the claim of their inability to disburse the maturity amount cannot be justified.  Moreover, the OPs have confessed through their written version that there were maturity amounts in these schemes.

            A question now arises that whether the complainant is a Consumer as is defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?  The facts state that complainant deposited some money in specific schemes of the OPs and the OPs assured a higher return which implies that the OP promised to give service to the depositor in the form of monetary benefit or purchase of products/services.  This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” as is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986 [Sec.2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019] who intended to avail “Service”, as is defined under section 2(1)(o) of the C. P. Act, 1986 [Sec. 2(42) of the C, P, Act, 2019] from the OP companies.  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 bank or a non-banking financial company (NBFC) for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act to that bank or NBFC.  Here the bank or the NBFC, as the case may be, is the Service Provider as is defined in the Act whose service is 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. However, we do not know whether the OP companies are registered banking companies or NBFCs as there is no documents filed in this case regarding this matter, but it is a fact that the OP companies 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 OP companies who were running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he visited the branch office of the OPs to get back the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OPs had issued notice to the depositor/complainant after the date of maturity to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OPs did not contest this case after filing their written version, nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in his complaint petition as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            However, it is a fact that the complainant has not received the maturity amount for which he has come before this Commission and the OPs are deficient in providing proper service as they have not returned the promised maturity amount.  So, the complainant is entitled to claim the maturity amount and the OPs are liable to refund the maturity amount.  The OPs are liable to compensate for their deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get relief by way of compensation as the promised amount is lying with the OPs for several years beyond the maturity dates.  Complainant claimed ₹85,000/- as compensation along with interest on the maturity amount. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement in DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019] stated: “when interest is awarded by way of damages awarding additional compensation is unjustified”.  So, we think awarding interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the respective dates of deposits is enough as a compensation the complainant is entitled to receive from the OP companies.  Here, as there is no mention about the maturity amount of the one-time deposit in Sahara Unique Scheme we think interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit, i. e. from 11/04/2008 and in case Daily Deposit also, interests @9% p.a. should be counted with effect from the respective dates of deposits. Complainant has paid ₹10,000/- in the Sahara Unique Scheme and ₹50,000/- in Daily Deposit Scheme totalling ₹60,000/-. The Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost as he is compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get his grievance be redressed.

            Hence, it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case No. CC/116/2019 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the total deposited amount of ₹60,000/- along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the respective dates of deposits till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay ₹8,000/- as litigation cost out of which ₹6,000/- to be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission and ₹2,000/- to the complainant within this above-mentioned 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.