The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 88.300/- including Interest & benefit + Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- + Litigation Cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Total Rs. 1,28,300/-).

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Opposite Party No.2 is the Registered Society named Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited and the Opposite Party No.1 is its authorized Franchisee at Kamarpara vide F.C.1611 (4119) and all the investment and agreement were being occurred in the office of the Opposite Party No.1. As per insistence of the Kamarpara F.C., the Complainant on 19.09.2014 invested a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Kamarpara F.C.  issued 3 (three) Certificates valued at Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 17,000/-  and against the said Certificates, the Opposite Party No.1 issued 3(Three) receipts of (Rs. 16,000/- + Rs. 17,000/- + Rs. 17,000/-). The return period of these certificates were of 3 (Three) years. After the expiry of three years, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to make payment of the matured amount on several occasions but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the Complainant, on 29.06.2019 sent a letter through registered post to the Opposite Party No.1 requesting him for payment along with interest and other benefits but till now the Opposite Party No.1 has not taken any steps towards the legitimate claim of the Complainant.  Having no alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before this commission and filed his written version. The Opposite Party No.2 did not appear before this Commission in spite of valid service of notice upon him. Hence, the case is proceeded ex parte against Opposite Party No.2.     

            By filing written version, the Opposite Party No.1 has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the relationship between the Opposite Party and the Complainant is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the Opposite Party and the Complainant is a commercial / financial and any grievance on it should be redressed in civil court only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party has further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Due to dispute with SEBI the matter is pending Before Hon`ble Supreme Court of India. The delay payment is happened as the Apex Court imposed Embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of companies on 21.11.2013. Subsequently, another petition has been filed by the Sahara Group of companies to lift Embargo on the Sahara Group of companies and so that they raised money from their assets and their business. But Honble Supreme Court has rejected the petition. The Complainant never went to the office of the Opposite Party No.1 for his demand. The present claim petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

          To prove his case, the complainant has filed (i) 3 (Three) original Receipts and 3 (Three) original Membership Certificates issued by Authorized Centre of Saharayn E – Multipurpose Society Limited, Kamarpara F.C. (ii) One original letter dated 29.06.2019 with postal receipt sent to the Opposite Party No.1 for payment of his payable amount.

          On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to file any document in support of his defense.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration-

      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

           1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?

      2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?

      3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

                                         DECISION  WITH  REASONS

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have also gone through the written argument filed by the both sides.  Perused the other materials on record.   

            At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He further submitted that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainant has successfully proved his case. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. advocate further submitted that the Complainant never came to the office of the Opposite Party to draw her payable amount. However, there is some delay to pay the amount due to the Embargo imposed upon the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant is not entitled to get compensation because the Opposite No.1 Party never harassed her.           

        Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1   

          On perusal of materials on record and 3(Three) original Receipts and 3 (Three) original Membership Certificates issued by Authorized Centre of Saharayn E–Multipurpose Society Limited, Kamarpara F.C., it appears that the Complainant is a depositor under Scheme of the Opposite Party No.1. If this be the so, then it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 according to section (2) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 read with Consumer Protection Act,2019.

           Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3 

             Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.   

              It is an admitted fact that the Complainant on 19.09.2014 invested a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Kamarpara F.C.  issued 3 (three) Certificates valued at Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 17,000 /- and Rs. 17,000/-  and against the said Certificates, the Opposite Party No.1 issued 3(Three) receipts of (Rs. 16,000/- + Rs. 17,000/- + Rs. 17,000/-). The return period of these certificates were of 3 (Three) years. After the expiry of three years, the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay the matured amount to the Complainant.          

         Now, on perusal of the reverse page of the Receipts where terms and conditions have been mentioned, it appears from the Column No.10 that The member shall be free to withdraw his/her contribution any time after the expiry of three years from the date of payment of the contribution insuch a case, the society may compensate the member by giving a benefit on the contribution made by such member of an amount not exceeding Rs.43,000/- on a contribution of Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of cash or cash equivalent products. Here, the Complainant has deposited Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 16,000/- + Rs. 17,000/- + Rs. 17,000/-). So, according to the terms and conditions, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 21,500/- benefits on the contribution of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 21,500/- = Rs. 71,500/-.    

        At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant drew my attention towards the terms and conditions mentioned in Column 6 of the reverse page of the Receipt that Upon the expiry of three years from the date of making of the contribution to the Society, the member shall be entitled to receive the benefits(i) a sum ranging from Rs.1400/- to Rs. 1600/- per month on a contribution of Rs.1,00,000/- depending upon various business factors.. But, this plea of Ld. advocate is not acceptable in this case because the said benefit is ought to be solely decided and approved by the Managing Committee of the Society.            

       In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

 Hence, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

 Accordingly, the case succeeds.

 Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            That the Consumer Case No. 76 of 2019 is hereby allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Party No.1 and ex Parte against the Opposite Party No.2 but with cost. 

           The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 71,500/- only along with an interest @ 8% p.a. on the said amount from 19.09.2017 to till the date of realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 days. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- toward litigation cost failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.