Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/2020

Ranjit Bisoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__15_______/2020                                      Date.    10    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Ranjit Bisoi,  S/o: Nakul Bisoi,  At: Raniguda Farm,  Po/Dist:Rayagada(Odisha), Cell No. 9861644111/ 9777022226.

                                                                                    ….  Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The Branch Manager, Sahara India branch office, At: R.K.Nagar, Po/Dist: Rayagada., State: Odisha .

2,The  Managing Director, Sahara Credit  Co-operative Society Ltd., Sahara   India  Bhawan, 8^th. Floor,, Kapurthala  Compex,  Alljanj, Lucknow-  ( U.P.) 226024.                   .

                                                                                    …Opposite  Parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self..

For the  O.Ps:- Sri  Sitaram Panda , Advocate, Rayagada.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of maturity   amount  towards   4 ( Four ) Nos.  R.D. accounts  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly  the complainant  was a    5(five)  Nos. R.D account  holder  of Sahara  India bearing    Account   numbers which  are mentioned  here under.  The date of deposit and amount  deposited and maturity date also have been mentioned  here under.

Sl.No.	R.D. account No..	Date of deposit.	Date of Maturity.	Deposited amount. @ Rs.2,000/- per month  from  4.4.2015 to 3.4.2019 48  months  in each R.D. account.
1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1.	18515600419	4.4.2015  to   3.4.2019	3.4.2019	Rs. 96,000.00
2.	18515600420	4.4.2015  to   3.4.2019	3.4.2019	Rs. 96,000.00
3.	18515600421	4.4.2015  to   3.4.2019	3.4.2019	Rs. 96,000.00
4.	18515600422	4.4.2015  to   3.4.2019	3.4.2019	Rs. 96,000.00
5.	18515600423	4.4.2015  to   3.4.2019	3.4.2019	Rs. 96,000.00
			Total	Rs.4,80,000/-

Copies  of the  pass book are  available   in the file which are marked  as  Annexure- 1 to 5.

Further  the complainant  had  invested  an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/-(Rupees  four  lakhs   eighty  thousand )only     on different dates mentioned here  under R.D deposit  48 months  through Agent of the Sahara  Company..  The Bond/ Certificate numbers, amount deposited,  date of deposit and date  of maturity dates, maturity amounts are mentioned    in separate statement  which is available  in the file which  is marked as Annexure-1.             .

                It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had contacted  with the O.Ps from time to time for payment of maturity amount    but they failed to furnish    any reply to the said grievance  nor paid  the maturity value to the complainant. Hence it appears that the O.Ps. have been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

                The date of  maturity  was  on  Dt. 03.04.2019  as per the  terms and conditions of the deposit  scheme and the O.Ps should have been paid the deposited amount a sum of Rs. Rs.4,80,000/- along with maturity  amount  after the maturity date to the complainant  with  accrued  interest.  It is evident from the  Annexures filed  and the pleadings put forward  that the O.Ps has accepted the  deposit promising to pay  interest.  It is their duty  to pay the maturity amount on the maturity date,  failing do so is an act of deficiency of service.

A preliminary study of the nature of the complaint  reveals that it is a case of breach of contract. As per the contract between the parties, the O.Ps in the instant case promised  to return the deposited amount to the  complainant  with a specified  rate of  interest when the  account matured, when   they  have  failed   to fulfill their obligations it tends to breach  of   contract.  Therefore a breach of contract  it self  may result in deficiency in service.  The  Consumer   Protection   Act,   provides for a special remedy for  such grievances and for awarding compensation to the  aggrieved persons.   Their callousness in fulfilling their  deficiency in service to the  complainant  undoubtedly  tells of their deficiency  in service   to the complainant.

The  O.Ps  in their written version contended that the clause -10 of the terms and conditions  of the scheme says “In case of disputes between the O.P. and  complainant the same shall be decided by arbitration as per  Arbitration and reconciliation Act,  1996. Arbitration proceeding and proceeding arising out of award shall be binding on both the parties.  In this regard the O.Ps  have cited Apex court citation  in the case of M/S. S.B.P. & Com. Patel Engineering Ltd. Reported in  SCC 2005 (8)  page No. 618 where in the  Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “If any agreement is executed between the parties for settlement of disputes through arbitration then either of the  parties can not ignore the  arbitration proceeding and same shall be decided by the Arbitrator.”

The O.Ps also cited another  citation  in the case of M/S./ Marigold Ex Jims Ltd. Vrs. M/S. Laxmi Nits & Womens in Jan, 2007 the  Hon’ble Supreme  Court  where in observed “If any  agreement exists between the parties  and it provide the arbitration clause, it is binding upon the parties to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes.”

During the course of hearing the learned counsel  for the complainant  relied  citation  it is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2014(3) page No. 574 the Hon’ble Supreme Court  wherein  observed  in para-29  “ The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a borrower. Rather it  is  an optional remedy. He can either seek  reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act.  If the borrower   opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot,  subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act. However, he  chooses  to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he can not be denied  relief by invoking  Section -8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  More over, the plain language of Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  makes it clear that the  remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of  any other law for the time being in force.

Basing on the  above citation of the  Apex court this District Commission  has  jurisdiction  to entertain the  instant  case. .

A preliminary study of the nature of the complaint  reveals that it is a case of breach of contract. As per the contract between the parties, the O.Ps in the instant case promised  to return the deposited amount to the  complainant  with a specified  rate of  interest when the  account matured, when   they  have  failed   to fulfill their obligations it tends to breach  of   contract.  Therefore a breach of contract  it self  may result in deficiency in service.  The  Consumer   Protection   Act  provides for a special remedy for  such grievances and for awarding compensation to the  aggrieved persons.   Their callousness in fulfilling their  deficiency in service to the  complainant  undoubtedly  tells of their deficiency  in service   to the complainant.

For better appreciation this  District Commission relied citations which are mentioned here under:-

        It  is held and reported  in CPR1993 (3) page No.343 where in the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in the  case of NeelavasantRajeVrs. Amagh Industries and Another  observed   “Where a company or firm  invites deposits promising attractive rate of interest, it amounts  to rendering  of financial  services as it receives deposits  from customers/consumers and pays interest  therein. The consideration for the  hiring of the service is the payment of deposit  amount  so as to enable the company to invest or utilize the money for  earning profits.  Therefore the deposit holder the complainant  would be a consumer within the meaning of the  Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Further when a deposit has been accepted to be repaid with interest and admissible  benefits.   It is a service to be rendered and failure  to repay the amount, amounts to deficiency in service under the C.P. Act. The O.Ps  in the instant case accepted the deposit and agreed to render service by way of  returning the principal  with  interest and admissible benefits.  The consideration being the   deposit amount. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case we do not find much force in the contention of the  O.P.  as the complaint petition is not maintainable under the C.P. Act”.

Further  it is held  and   reported in CCC 2005 page No. 192 (SS) the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Maharashtra  where in observed “ Consumer Protection Act,1986- Section 2(1)(O)- service-Co-operative society-service rendered by a  Credit Society in accepting deposits from the investors falls within definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act,”.

Again  it is  held and reported  in CCC  2005  page No. 17  the Hon’ble  State commission, New  Delhi   where in observed  in para -6  “Any person who provides financial service of the kind in question is liable to compensate or refund the amount received by it in terms of the agreement or the  contract as he is guilty of unfair trade practice as well as  Deficiency in service.”

It is clearly stated in the case of  Mrs. Anita AhoojaVrs. Banvarilal Arora and others  reported  in  2003(3) C.P.J 137  where in the  hon’ble  National Commission observed “A  firm  doing business in taking deposits from the  public  and paying interest renders ‘Service’  within the meaning of Section 2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act. The depositors  of moneys with the company are consumers.  The contention that the amount were taken by the company as loans cannot be accepted”.

It is further held in the case of Kasi Annapurna Vrs. Smt.  V.Bharathireported  in 1996(1) C.P.J   43  wherein the  Hon’ble National Commission observed “For failure to repay the deposited amount on maturity is deficiency of service”. It is further  held in the decision of Kailash Pati Singh  Vrs. Golden Forest India Ltd  reported in  2003(3) C.L.D 1074  where in the hon’ble National Commission observed that  “where the O.P. failed  to pay maturity amount to some and periodical interest to some and there was no likelyhood  of payment of fixed deposits which would mature in future, held it to be  unfair trade practice”.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case we deem that the rentention of deposited  amount  by the O.Ps. such a long time  amounted to  Deficiency in service as defined  U/S Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service 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 in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

This District Commission has  found the  act of with holding  payment  by the O.Ps. are not bonafide. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is  gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence the complainant deserves to be compensated.

 The case in hand, payment  was not  made and there was delay  more than 2(two)Years. In our view the interest of justice  would met if this commission  award accrued  interest i.e. 9% simple  interest  per  annum from the date of  respective  deposit  till realisation.    

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                            

ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition is allowed  in  part   against the O.Ps. 

1. The O.Ps. are     ordered   to  pay  maturity  amount deposited in  5(five) Nos.  R.D.account No. 18515600419, 18515600420,  18515600421, 18515600422. 18515600423  for the period from 4.4..2015 to 03.4.2019 an amount of  Rs.2,000.00 per month in each R.D. account   total  a sum of  Rs.4,80.,000.00  inter alia  interest  @ Rs.9% per annum  from the date of  respective deposit till realization.
2.  

Since we award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the O.Ps after the due date, no further compensation is awarded .

The OPs    are  ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  30 days from the  date of  receipt  of this  order . Service the  copies of the order to the parties as per rule. 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this    10th  ^.  day  of    December, 2021.

 

Member.                                                                                                         President