DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 72 of 2019

 

 

Smt. Paramita Deb,

W/O. Sri Rakesh Paul,

Resident of Ramnagar Road No.4,

Sankar Chowmuhani, P.O. Ramnagar,

Dist.-West Tripura, 799002….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

 

The Sector Head,

Agartala City Sector Office,

Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.,

H.G.B. Road, Near Melarmath Kalibari,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001............................................................... Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

DR  (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Abhijit Sengupta,

  Advocate.

 

 

For the O.P.    : Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 30/ 12 /2020.

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Paramita Deb, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining against the O.P. for deficiency of service. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased a fixed deposit policy from Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. certificate on 15/02/2017 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- vide policy No.925005195978, the maturity date of the policy is 15/08/2018 and the maturity value of the policy is Rs.1,74,450/-. Thereafter, the Complainant purchased another policy certificate on 27/06/2017 amounting to Rs.2,39,000/- vide policy No.925004233505. The said policy was matured on 27/12/2018 which would get Rs.2,77,957/-  on the basis of the assurance given by the O.P. to refund the matured value in time. After maturity of said policies, the complainant met with the opposite party on several occasions in his office chamber but the O.P. could not apprise the Complainant. The husband of the complainant also on several occasions met the O.P. personally in the office chamber but the O.P. has made no payment without any lawful reason. The Complainant submits that the non payment of matured value of 2(two) fixed deposit certificates of the complainant is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. therefore the O.P. is liable to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only to the complainant along with his matured value + late payment interest. Thereafter, the Complainant served a notice of demand through his advocate upon the O.P. on 27/02/2019 by registered post. The O.P. duly received the said notice and reply dated 12/03/2019 the O.P. has purportedly stated some statement in support of their late payment of the matured value to the complainant and finally the O.P. requested the complainant to wait for few months for getting the investment of the complainant. After elapse of 3/ 4 months the O.P. did not pay the said matured value of the polices to the Complainant, thereafter the Complainant has filed this Consumer Case before this Forum. 

Hence, this case. 

2. Notice was issued upon the O.P. on admission of the complaint and thereafter O.P. has appeared by engaging Lawyer namely Sri Biplab Debnath and sought for time for filing written objection. Thereafter written objection was submitted on behalf of the O.P. by one Sri Rupak Acharjee. In the written version, it is stated that the Complainant has become a member of the Society and after taking membership as such being a member of the Society she got right to take part in the scheme of the society, she simply shared her money for furtherance of the object of the Society. She can not separate herself from the Society and the Complainant not a consumer of Society. There is no relationship of the consumer and service provider in between the Complainant and the O.P. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. It is also agitated by the O.P. that the complaint is not maintainable. They further agitated that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the disputes arising in between the Co-operative Society and its members.   So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.                                                          

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined herself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 4 documents comprising 07 sheets under a Firisti dated 26/08/2019. The documents are namely Photo copy of FD Certificate, Notice & Demand dated 27/02/2019 with parcel slip, Tracking Report & Reply of O.P. dated 12/03/2019. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was not cross examined by the O.Ps. side because O.Ps. side none appears that day. 

    On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Rupak Acharjee, Works as Sector Manager Agartala City was examined and cross examined by the Complainant side.                       

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

   (i). Whether the complaint is maintainable as per law?

  (ii). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant? 

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

          We have heard arguments from both sides. 

          Learned Counsel Mr. Abhijit Sengupta for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant purchased 02 nos. of Fixed Deposit Policy amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,39,000/- on 15/02/2017 and 27/06/2017 respectively. After maturity of the said amount the Complainant demanded the maturity value from the O.P. But the O.P. requested the Complainant to wait for few months for getting the maturity value from the O.P. The Complainant also served  a  demand notice dated 27/02/2019 upon the O.P. and thereafter filed this case for getting matured value along with compensation and interest and also cost. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2013   Legal Eagle 312(Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Others) decided on 23/04/2013. He also submitted his written argument.                

    On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh appeared for the O.P. at the time of argument and he vehemently opposed the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable as per law of Co-operative Society as well as decision of the Hon'ble National Commission decided in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 2nd September, 2013 which is reported 2013 SCC online NCDRC 775 (Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs. The Managing Director, Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.).  

          Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh relying upon the said decision submitted that the instant complaint is not maintainable as per law. He also relied upon a decision of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani decided in complaint No.73 of 2018 dated 15/07/2019. Relying upon this decision, he submitted that in that complaint case the Sahara Co-operative Society Ltd. was made the O.P. and the Learned District Consumer Forum relying upon decision of the National Commission dismissed the complaint. So the same fact will yield in the instant case and it is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Singh also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court decided in Civil Appeal No.2706 of 2018 along with Batch of Civil Appeals (Income tax Mumbai and it is a recent judgment of the Apex Court).     

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

           Since O.P. challenged the maintainability of the proceedings we will decide issue No.1 first : Whether the complainant is maintainable as per law? 

             We have gone through the judgments relied upon both parties. The judgment which is relied upon by the Counsel of the Complainant deals with a different aspect. In that case Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited was not a party. According to us the decision relied upon by the Counsel of the Complainant is not squarely befitted in this complaint case. But on the other hand we find that the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi decided in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 is applicable to the instant case and that decision has come later on. We also find that the same issue was decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani relying upon the decision of the National Commission (supra). Relying upon the said decision Learned District Consumer Forum, Bhawani dismissed the complaint. In our opinion also the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer qua- O.Ps.

             From the exhibited documents relied upon by the Complainant, we find that one reply letter send to the Complainant by the O.P. side is marked as Exhibit-I series. The contents of the letter is very much relevant for disposal of the complaint. In the said letter, it is informed by the O.Ps. to the Complainant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has imposed an embergo on the entire Sahara group restricting sell, mortgage of any movable and immovable asset and in case of any such sale the amount and single rupee can not be used by the Sahara for payment of esteemed investors as per the direction of Supreme Court. So from this exhibited documents we find that it is not challenged, moreover the Complainant relied upon the said letter and from which it is very much clear that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 

             Considering all aspects on the decision of the Apex Court as well as the National Commission we are of the view that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable is law. Accordingly the issue No.I is decided. 

               Issue Nos.2&3 :

             Since issue No. 1 is decided in the negative and the Complaint is not maintainable as per law, it is not necessary to discuss the issue Nos.2&3. 

             In the result the complaint is dismissed as it is not maintainable as per law and no costs.                               

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA