West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/25/2021

Sri Nayan Chandra Paul, S/O- Late Nagen Chandra Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sector Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Balurghat Sector - Opp.Party(s)

Debashis Barman

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 35 of C.P. Act,2019 against the Opposite Party claiming an amount of Rs. 1,00.000/- along with Interest & maturity benefit as per SUPER BB+ Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- + Litigation Cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Total Rs. 1,40,000/-).

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant on being attracted with the prospectus and terms and conditions of the SUPER BB Scheme of the Opposite Party, the Complainant opened and entered into the said policy and invested Rs.1,00,000/- along with1141 joining point to the Opposite Party in SUPER BB Scheme on 21.05.2018 and the Opposite Party duly issued a certificate in favour of the Complainant as follows  -

Certificate No.            467004246979

Hologram No.             992721635998 

Date of Opening         21.05.2018 

Principal amount        Rs.1,00,000/- ( along with 1141 joining point ) 

Date of maturity           21.05.2021

Name of the scheme   SUPER BB

Membership No.          467004246979 

Tenure                         36 months 

           After completion of 36 months of maturity period, the Complainant wanted to get back his maturity amount but the Opposite Party kept mum and did not give the maturity amount. Lastly, the Complainant submitted his prayer for claim to the Opposite Party on 06.07.2021 through registered post vide postal receipt no.RW94655992IN but the Opposite Party did not pay heed. So, the Complainant became bound to take the shelter of this Commission for getting proper redress.

           Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party appeared before this Commission and filed his written version.

            By filing written version, the Opposite Party has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The Opposite Party 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 and the matter is pending Before Honble 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 on 19.06.2017. There is no merit in the petition and it is not maintainable. So, it is liable to be dismissed    

.

To prove his case, the complainant has filed -  

(i) Original SUPER BB certificate dated 21.05.2018 in the name of the Complainant,

 (ii) Advocate letter with postal receipt.

         

           On the other hand, the Opposite Party 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 evidence on affidavits and written argument filed by the both sides. We also perused the documents filed by the Complainant and 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 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  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. The Complainant is not entitled to get compensation because the Opposite Party never harassed him.           

 

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

Point No. 1    

          On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- in the SUPER BB Scheme of the Opposite Party  and the Opposite Party issued a certificate against the said invested amount being certificate no.467004246979 and the date of maturity was 21.05.2021.If that be the so, then it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party according to  section (2)(7) of 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 on 21.05.2018 the Complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- along with 1141 joining point  to the Opposite Party in SUPER BB scheme and the Opposite Party duly issued a certificate against the said investment. It reveals from the certificate that 1 (one) joining point is equal to 100 rupees. It is also a fact that the date of maturity of the said scheme was 21.05.2021. It was the duty of the Opposite Party to pay the maturity amount along with value of 1141 joining point but the Opposite Party failed to pay the same. It also appears that on 06.07.2021 the Complainant sent an Advocate`s letter to the Opposite Party still then the Opposite Party did not pay the payable amount to the Complainant.

             As per certificate the total amount payable to the Complainant is -

Sl No.	Certificate No.	Date	Invested  Amount	Maturity date	Maturity Amount along with Joining point amount
1.	467004246979	21.05.2018	Rs.1,00,000/-	21.05.2021	(193160/-+1141x100)=3,07,260/-

 

Thus, it appears that the total amount payable to the Complainant after maturity date is Rs.3,07,260/-.The Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost.

             In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Party and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party

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

 

Hence, it is

                                                          O R D E R E D

            That the Consumer Case No. 25 of 2021 is hereby allowed on contest in part but with cost. 

           The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,07,260/- only along with an interest @ 8% from 21.05.2021(maturity date) till the date of realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 days. The Opposite Party is 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.