Orissa

Rayagada

CC/13/2023

Nalitam Sunita - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri VRM Patnaik

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 08.02.2023

     Date of Final Hearing: 15.02.2024

          Date of  Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 13 / 2023

 

Nalitam Sunita,

D/O: Lukku Kanaka Raju,

At: Old ITI Road, 2^nd. Lane,

Raniguda  Rarm,

Post/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).

(Sri  Ram Mohan  Patnaik, Advocate,Rayagada for the complainant)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant

Versus

1.The  Branch  Manager,  Sahara India,

 At: R.K.Nagar, Po/Dist: Rayagada.

(None  for the O.Ps.)                                                                                                                          

2.The Managing Director,  Sahara India Bhawan,

Kapurtala Complex, Alliganj, Lucknow,

Pin No.226024. State:Utterpradesh.

(None  for the O.Ps.)                                                   …Opposite Parties

 

        

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

ORDER          U/S- 39  R/W  SECTION- 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019

 

Sri  Rajendra  Kumar  Panda, President.

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non payment of maturity value   of Housing bonds  with accrued interest  which  the complainant sought  redressal.        

            The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant had deposited the following  amounts with the O.Ps. organisation   under cumulative   fixed deposit  scheme  floated by the  O.P. i.e. Housing Bonds of  carrying  interest. In turn the O.Ps had issued  certificates in favour of the complainant (copies of the same are available in District  commission  office file which are  marked as Annexure-1    )   which  are  mentioned here in  detail.

 

Sl.No.	Bond/Certificate  No.	Date of deposit.	Date of maturity.	Amount deposited.	Maturity amount.	Duration.
1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7
1.	929002529245	26.2.2010	26.2.2017	Rs.5,000/-	31,500/-	7(seven) years.

As per the  terms and condition of the deposit  the O.P. should have been paid the maturity amounts total  a sum of Rs.31,500/- after the maturity date.  But till date  the O.Ps have not paid the maturity amount   deferring the payment for some or other plea and paid deaf ear. Hence this case. The complainant prays the commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  the  maturity amount a sum of Rs. 31,500/- besides cost and compensation and such other relief as the commission deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps were not appeared though notices has been duly served  resultant made exparte.

Basing on the pleadings of the complainant, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainant  including  self attested Xerox copies  Bond Golden-24  which was issued by the O.Ps in  favour of the complainant  Marked as Annexure-I ..

Issue  No.1.

The  transaction made between the complainant and O.Ps  is clearly one of providing service for ‘consideration’ and the depositor is the relation of consumer and  service provider’ under the  C.P. Act, 2019.

As such we have least hesitation in holding that the  complainant in the present case decidedly  a ‘Consumer’  within the meaning of Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the  C.P. Act, 1986 corresponding Section-2 (7) (i)  & (ii) of C.P.Act, 2019 and the  O.Ps were providing  ‘Service’ within the meaning of Section  2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986  or   Section- 2(42) of the C.P. Act,2019.

Issue No.2 & 3.

It is  not in dispute that the complainant had made deposits with the  O.Ps.under their schemes.  It is also not dispute  that the deposits so made by  the  complainant  with the O.P. were to  carry interest  at the agreed rate  and after  the date of maturity, the same were payable  by the  O.Ps to the complainant together with interest.  It is also not in dispute that the  O.P. has failed to discharge the above said obligation.

The  default on the part of the O.Ps to carry out its obligations to repay the principal and/or interest constitutes, in our opinion, ‘deficiency in service’ so as to warrant the filing of a complaint before a Consumer  Commission seeking relief under the Act.

It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts/deposits by any  financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service.

We have least hesitation  in holding that in the given facts, there is ‘deficiency in service’  simultaneously unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

In the given  facts and circumstances  of the case  we deem that the  detention   of deposited  amount by the  Opposite party for such long time  amounted to deficiency in service as  defined U/S 2(11) of C.P. Act, 2019.

“Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection  shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required  to be  maintained by  or under any law  for the time being in force or has been  undertaken to be performed  by a  person a pursuance of a  contract or  otherwise in relation to any service  and includes-

(i)any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which  causes loss or injury to the consumer, and

(ii)deliberate withholding of relevant information by such  person to the consumer.

ThIs Commission  hold that  the action of withholding  payment by the  Opposite party is not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is   a gross deficiency  in service  on the part of the  O.P. Hence the  complainant deserves  to be  compensated.  In our  view  the interest of justice  would met  if this Consumer award accrued  interest  from the date  of maturity till its realization.  In view of the  above documents  relating to the  case in  hand  we allow  the above complaint in part.

This Commission  by perusing all the  evidence on record opined that  there is unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps for which  the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed for. Therefore, the  complainant would be entitled  to the  maturity amount, Accordingly the  Issue No.2 & 3 are  answered.

Hence Order                               

Based on aforesaid findings, this  Commission allowed the  complaint and directed  the O.Ps to pay the  maturity value and other benefits   of certificate No.929002529245 total maturity  value a sum of Rs. 31,500/-  inter alia with   interest @ Rs. 18 % per  annum  from the  respective  date of maturity  i.e. Dt. 26.02.2017   till realization.

.       Since this commission award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the O.Ps after the due date of maturity, no further compensation is awarded. The O.Ps are directed  to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The OPs    are  ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  50 days  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order.                                  

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated.

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 28th. Day of  February, 2024 under the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.                                                                                                                                              

                                                                        PRESIDENT

            PRONOUNCED ON Dtd. 28.02.2024