Date of Filing             :    11 December, 2020.

Date of Judgement    :    03 October, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Smt. Smriti 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 13/05/2017 a total of ₹4,80,000/- in a scheme of the OPs named as F2 SAHARA.A.SELECT in 32 equal instalments @₹15,000/-.  After receiving this amount the OP-1 issued 32 (thirty one) certificates on that date.  The period of each investment is for 18 months and the date of maturity is written as 13/11/2018 in each certificate. The total maturity amount would become ₹5,58,240/- as the maturity amount would be ₹17,445/- for each investment of ₹15,000/-.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of 18 months i. e. after 13/11/2018 she 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.  Complainant then sent a letters to the OP-1 on 29/08/2020 by herself and on 07/10/2020 through her 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 her money complainant filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OPs: (a) to disburse the total maturity amount of ₹5,58,240/- as per the scheme together with interest from the date of maturity till realisation, (b) to pay compensation of ₹3,00,000/- for her mental agony and harassment,  (c) litigation cost of ₹1,00,000/- and any other relief or reliefs to which she is entitled to under law and equity.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the thirty two certificates issued by the OP-1 on 13/05/2017 and (ii) two letters dated 29/08/2020 & 07/10/2020 issued by her 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 her 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 her 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 she 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 ₹4,80,000/- on 13/05/2017 at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued 32 (thirty two) certificates against each investment of ₹15,000/- to the complainant/depositor on that date on behalf of their company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., having its ewgistered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh–226 024.  The Certificate Numbers started from 925006303428 to 925006303436, from 925006303437 to 925006303458 and 925006303472 for investment of ₹15,000/- each and the corresponding account numbers assigned to each certificate started from 15856703903 to 15856703911, from 15856703913 to 15856703934 and 15856703912 respectively.

            Each certificate states that “Received From Member Account Holder Smt. SMRITI AGARWAL a sum of Rupees 15,000/- on date 13/05/2017 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 two certificates as 13/11/2018.

                Complainant alleged that after the date of maturity she 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 she 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 her 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 she repeatedly requested the OPs 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 version of the OPs in her 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 her 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 herself stated that she repeatedly tried to get back the maturity amount and also sent letters to the OPs but failed. This clearly depicts 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 ₹5,58,240/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity, i. e. from 13/11/2018, 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/261/2020 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 ₹5,58,240/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the date of maturity, 13/11/2018,  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.