Date of Filing             :    11 December, 2020.

Date of Judgement    :    03 October, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Kailash Chand Agarwal, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) against (1) the Regional Manager and (ii) M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. , hereinafter collectively called as the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity amount after the expiry of the plan period.

                The factual Matrix of the complaint, as emerged from the complaint petition and documents annexed with it is that the Complainant invested on 31/05/2017 a total of ₹4,95,000/- in a scheme of the OPs named as F2 SAHARA.A.SELECT in 33 equal instalments @₹15,000/-.  After receiving this amount the OP-1 issued 33 (thirty three) certificates on that date.  The period of each investment is for 18 months and the date of maturity is written as 30/11/2018 in each certificate. The total maturity amount would become ₹5,75,685/-.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of 18 months i. e. after 30/11/2018 he visited the office of the OP-1 but on several pretext the OP-1 deferred to disburse the maturity amount.  Lastly in the month of March, 2020 they denied to disburse the maturity amount.  He then sent letters to the OP-1 on 28/08/2020 by himself and on 07/10/2020 through his Ld. Lawyer requesting the OP-1 to disburse the total maturity amount as per the scheme which also yielded no result.  Finding no other way to get back his money complainant filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OPs: (a) to disburse the total maturity amount of ₹5,75,685/- as per the scheme together with interest from the date of maturity till realisation, (b) to pay compensation of ₹3,00,000/- for his mental agony and harassment,  (c) litigation cost of ₹1,00,000/-and any other relief or reliefs to which he is entitled to under law and equity.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the thirty three certificates issued by the OP-1 on 31/05/2017 and (ii) two letters dated 28/08/2020 & 07/10/2020 issued by him to the OP-1 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. Lawyer and filed their written version. Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit. OPs failed to file any interrogatories nor did they file any evidence. Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed his Brief Notes on Argument.  OPs did not participate in the argument.  We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which he is entitled to get relief as prayed for. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The material facts of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents are that the complainant had deposited a total sum of ₹4,95,000/- on 31/05/2017 at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued 33 (thirty three) certificates to the complainant/ depositor on that date on behalf of their company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226 024.  The Certificate Numbers started from 925005440699 to 925005440731 for investment of ₹15,000/- each and the corresponding account numbers assigned to each certificate started from 15856704277 to 15856704309 respectively.

            Each certificate states that “Received From Member Account Holder Shri KAILASH CHAND AGARWAL a sum of Rupees 15,000/- on date 31/05/2017 for the period of 18 months.   This shall bear fixed interest as per the rules of the Society under the terms and conditions of the Scheme.  [Emphasis supplied.]  In each Certificate the Maturity amount is written as ₹17,445/- for investment of ₹15,000/-.  The date of maturity is written in each of these thirty three certificates as 30/11/2018.

                Complainant alleged that after the date of maturity he frequently visited the office of the OP – 1 intending to get back the maturity amounts, but the OP – 1 could not disburse the amounts and ultimately denied to refund any amount.

            In their written version the OPs stated that the statements written the complaint petition are partly correct and partly incorrect.  They stated that they had no ill motive or malafide intentions for not making the payment.  They were unable to make payment since there was an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  They also denied that they were not ready for making payment but it was the fault of the complainant that he did not file the original documents and the KYC after the date of maturity for processing and disbursement.  It is also stated in their written version that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under the C. P. Act as this is a commercial/financial transaction and the complainant’s grievance should be redressed in Civil Court, not in a Consumer Forum, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            A question now arises: whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  The facts in this case state us that the complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OPs and the OPs assured a higher return which implies that the OPs promised to give service to the depositor in the form of monetary benefit. This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” as is defined under Section 2(7) of the C. P. Act, 2019 who intended to avail “Service”, as per Sec. 2(42) of the C. P. Act, 2019, from the OP.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a company/society for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer, under the C. P. Act.  Here the cooperative society in question is the Service Provider whose service is intended to be 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.  The OP 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 OPs who were running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he requested the OPs repeatedly to refund the maturity amount but failed. Whether the OPs had issued notice to the depositor/complainant after the expiry of the plan period to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear and the complainant also failed to highlight this matter after receiving this written of the OPs in his evidence or in BNA which are mere the repetition of the complaint petition. 

            In conclusion of the discussion as stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the complainant has invested his money in a specific Scheme of the OPs. The OPs failed to disburse the maturity amount after the expiry of the plan period. So, they are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  The complainant himself stated that he repeatedly tried to get back the maturity amount and also sent letters to the OPs but failed. This means that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the OPs for which they must compensate. The OPs are liable to return the maturity amount in accordance with the plan. The complainant claimed simple interest on the maturity amount along with a compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.  It is a settled principle that when award is given in the form of interest then awarding both interest and compensation will be unjustified. We think payment of the total maturity amount of ₹5,75,685/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity, i. e. from 30/11/2018, will serve the purpose in this case. The OPs are also liable to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as the complainant has been compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get his grievance be redressed.

            Hence, it is

ORDERED

            that the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/262/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant the total maturity amount of ₹5,75,685/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the date of maturity, 30/11/2018,  till the date of this order. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.  Compliance of this order should be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will have the liberty to take recourse under the law.  

            Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.