For Complainant         :           Self.

For OP No.1                 :           Sri S. K. Mohanty, Advocate.

For OP No.2                 :           None.

                                                            -x-

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her husband (Gangadhar Panigrahi) being insisted by Agent of Ops 1 & 2, agreed to deposit some amount with the OP.1 daily.  It is submitted that the complainant’s husband made daily small deposits from 13.04.2013 under Sahara Super Scheme vide Policy No.24224800969 and he deposited a sum of Rs.10, 140/- up to 15.07.2015.  It is further submitted that the depositor died on 30.10.2016 and the present complainant being the wife and nominee under the scheme has been approaching the Ops 1 & 2 regularly by producing documents to close the account on maturity but the OP.1 replies that the money is yet to come.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.10, 140/- under the scheme Sahara Super with assured benefits along with Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter through its advocate admitting the deposits made by the complainant under Sahara Super Scheme from 13.04.2013 vide Certificate No.24224800969 but contended that at the time of deposit as advanced in favour of the Company, the complainant had entered into a contractual liability with the Ops wherein he has agreed to abide with the terms and conditions of the scheme of Sahara Super Scheme.  It is further contended that the complainant approached the OP.1 for withdrawal of deposit without producing any document and when she was asked to furnish relevant documents, the complainant refused to furnish the same.  Thus denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                     In spite of valid notice the Op No.2 did not prefer to participate in this proceeding in any manner and thus remained ex-parte. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  We have perused the documents on record.

4.                     In this case, deposits under Sahara Super scheme of the Ops from 13.04.2013 are all admitted facts.  It is seen from the deposit certificates available on record that the scheme was matured on 13.08.2016.  The case of the complainant is that she approached the OP.1 for maturity withdrawal of deposits but the OP.1 without effecting maturity payment is stating that the money is yet to come.

5.                     The OP.1 stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try over this case as because the complainant has already entered into arbitration agreement with the Ops under which the dispute between the parties shall be decided by an Arbitrator.  The Op has not filed the copy of agreement in support of his above contention for our perusal.  It has been decided in a number of cases by the higher Forums that even if remedy of arbitration found provided in the agreement between the parties, it would not have barred the Forums under C. P. Act from redressing the cases of the complainant as because, the Act is not derogation of any other law for the time being in force as per Section-3 of C. P. Act.  In view of the above decision, this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this case.

6.                     Further it is stated that the complainant has not furnished any document at the time of approach to Ops and when she was asked to furnish documents, she denied.  This submission of the OP.1 does not sound good.  When a depositor approaches OP.1 for withdrawal of his/her deposit, he/she must have some documents with him/her and if any more documents are required, the consumer is to be suitably advised.  Official process for withdrawal is to be promptly taken up but the OP.1 has not taken up the matter in this case.  Non-cooperation of the Ops in effecting payment to the complainant, in our opinion, amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is entitled for withdrawal of his money and the Ops are entitled to pay the same with due interest.

7.                     It is seen from the record that the complainant has deposited Rs.10, 140/- matured on 13.08.2016 and she wants to withdraw her money and she also can do it.  The Ops are to pay back the deposited amount with due interest as per scheme.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a cost of Rs.2000/-.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.10, 140/- under Sahara Super scheme with as usual rate of interest and benefits under the schemes from the date of deposit till actual payment and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  If the Ops failed to make payment within the given period, they are to pay Rs.100/- towards compensation per day to the complainant from the date of this order over and above the guaranteed interest under the scheme.

(to dict.)