Orissa

Rayagada

CC/67/2019

Sri Aravinda Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

28 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE: ODISHA, 765 001.

……

 

C.C. Case  No.  67 / 2019.                                             Date.         28    .  8     . 2020

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

 

Sri Arabinda Kumar Sahu, S/O: Late Kasi Prasad Sahu, Gandhi Nagar,  Po/Dist: Rayagada, State: Odisha.          .......Complainant.

 

Versus

1. The Sector Manager, Sahara India credit co-operative Society Ltd, Po/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).
2. The Director, Sahara India credit co-operative Society Ltd., Aliganj, Lucknow.
3. The Regional  Manager, Sahara  India credit co-operative Society Ltd, Rayagada.
4. The Area Manager, Sahara  India credit co-operative Society Ltd, Anthapalle, Sambalpur, Dist:Sambalpur,  768004 .
5. The Zonal Manager,    Sahara  India credit co-operative Society Ltd,  Sahid Nagar,  Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda, pin No. 751  001.                                                                          ......Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri V. Ram  Mohan Patnaik, Advocate.

For the O.Ps:- Set  Exparte. 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of  Maturity  value  of Shara M.Benefit  certificates  bearing account Nos. (1) 18514203279, (2)18514203280 which was issued by the O.Ps  in favour of the complainant   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the  O.Ps    neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps    are set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

.

We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.

Heard from the  complainant at length.  We perused the complaint petition and the documents filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

            From the  documents filed by the complainant it reveals that the complainant had deposited  amounts  in the above organization.  In support of  deposit of money in different  dates the Complainant has  filed xerox copies of  Indemnity bond and correspondence with the O.Ps for issue of duplicate  certificates (Copies of the  same  are  in the file which is marked  as Annexure-I   to 3 ).

Further  the complainant  had  invested  an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs)only     on different dates mentioned here  under fixed  deposit  (final redemption  in 7(five) years  and will entitled   interest  of O.Ps  Sahara M. Benefit  plan  scheme through Agent of the Sahara  Company..  The Bond/ Certificate numbers, amount deposited,  date of deposit and date  of maturity dates are mentioned  here under.

 

Sl.No.	Certificate No.	Date of deposit	Date of Maturity.	Deposited Amount	Final redemption  in 5(five) years  .i.e. Maturity Amount
1	18514203279	5.7.2012	17.7.2017	6,00,000/-	7,64,491/-
2	18514203280	5.7.2012	17.7.2017	6,00,000/-	7,64,491/-
3				Total.	15,28,982/-

 

                The  O.Ps  had circulated  Sahara M.Benefit  plan  brochure.  In the brochure  the O.Ps had clearly  mentioned   the  complainant   entitled  final  redemption   on  completion  of  5 (five) years   term  with    interest   on the  deposited   principal amount.

                It further appears that prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had issued legal notice through its counsel on Dt. 2.05.2019 and it was duly served on the O.P.(Copies of the legal notice  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-4 )   but they failed to furnish reply to the said notice nor issued duplicate certificates in favour of the complainant(copies of the postal  receipt is in the file which is marked as Annexure-5). Hence it appears that the O.Ps. have been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

The date of  maturity  was  on  Dt. 17,7,2017  as per the  terms and conditions of the deposit  scheme and the O.Ps should have been paid the maturity amount a sum of Rs.15, 28,982.00 after the maturity date to the complainant  with  accrued  interest.  It is evident from the  Annexures filed  and the pleadings put forward  that the O.Ps has accepted the  deposit promising to pay  interest.  It is their duty  to pay the maturity amount on the maturity date,  failing do so is an act of deficiency of service.

A preliminary study of the nature of the complaint  reveals that it is a case of breach of contract. As per the contract between the parties, the O.Ps in the instant case promised  to return the deposited amount to the  complainant  with a specified  rate of  interest when the  account matured, when   they  have  failed   to fulfill their obligations it tends to breach  of   contract.  Therefore a breach of contract  it self  may result in deficiency in service.  The  Consumer   Protection   Act, 1986  provides for a special remedy for  such grievances and for awarding compensation to the  aggrieved persons.   Their callousness in fulfilling their  deficiency in service to the  complainant  undoubtedly  tells of their deficiency  in service   to the complainant.

For better appreciation this forum relied citations which are mentioned here under:-

          It  is held and reported  in CPR 1993 (3) page No.343 where in the  Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in the  case of Neelavasant  Raje  Vrs. Amagh Industries and Another  observed   “Where a company or firm  invites deposits promising attractive rate of interest, it amounts  to rendering  of financial  services as it receives deposits  from customers/consumers and pays interest  therein. The consideration for the  hiring of the service is the payment of deposit  amount  so as to enable the company to invest or utilize the money for  earning profits.  Therefore the deposit holder the complainant  would be a consumer within the meaning of the  Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Further when a deposit has been accepted to be repaid with interest and admissible  benefits.   It is a service to be rendered and failure  to repay the amount, amounts to deficiency in service under the C.P. Act. The O.Ps  in the instant case accepted the deposit and agreed to render service by way of  returning the principal  with  interest and admissible benefits.  The consideration being the   deposit amount. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case we do not find much force in the contention of the  O.P.  as the complaint petition is not maintainable under the C.P. Act”.

 

Further  it is held  and   reported in CCC 2005 page No. 192 (SS) the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Maharashtra  where in observed “ Consumer Protection Act,1986- Section 2(1)(O)- service-Co-operative society-service rendered by a  Credit Society in accepting deposits from the investors falls within definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act,1986”.

 

Again  it is  held and reported  in CCC  2005  page No. 17  the Hon’ble  State commission, New  Delhi   where in observed  in para -6  “Any person who provides financial service of the kind in question is liable to compensate or refund the amount received by it in terms of the agreement or the  contract as he is guilty of unfair trade practice as well as  Deficiency in service.”

It is clearly stated in the case of  Mrs. Anita AhoojaVrs. Banvarilal Arora and others  reported  in  2003(3) C.P.J 137  where in the  hon’ble  National Commission observed “A  firm  doing business in taking deposits from the  public  and paying interest renders ‘Service’  within the meaning of Section 2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act. The depositors  of moneys with the company are consumers.  The contention that the amount were taken by the company as loans cannot be accepted”.

It is further held in the case of Kasi Annapurna Vrs. Smt.  V.Bharathir eported  in 1996(1) C.P.J   43  wherein the  Hon’ble National Commission observed “For failure to repay the deposited amount on maturity is deficiency of service”. It is further  held in the decision of Kailash Pati Singh  Vrs. Golden Forest India Ltd  reported in  2003(3) C.L.D 1074  where in the hon’ble National Commission observed that  “where the O.P. failed  to pay maturity amount to some and periodical interest to some and there was no likelyhood  of payment of fixed deposits which would mature in future, held it to be  unfair trade practice”.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case we deem that the rentention of deposited  amount  by the O.Ps. such a long time  amounted to  Deficiency in service as defined  U/S Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service 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 in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

This forum found the  act of with holding  payment  by the O.Ps. are not bonafide. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is  gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence the complainant deserves to be compensated.

 The case in hand, payment  was not  made and there was delay  more than 1(one)Year. In our view the interest of justice  would met if this forum  award accrued  interest i.e. 9% simple  interest  per  annum from the date of  respective  maturity  till realisation.    

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                            

ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition is allowed  in  part   against the O.Ps. 

The O.Ps are ordered to  pay Rs 15,28,982/-.  towards maturity  amount under fixed  deposit in   Sahara M. Benefit  scheme of above  certificate Nos. ( 1) 18514203279, (2)18514203280   inter alia with simple  interest @ Rs. 9 % per  annum  from the  respective  date of maturity  i.e. Dt. 17.7.2017  till realization  after receipt of fresh  Indemnity bond  from the complainant.

The complainant is directed to file fresh indemnity  bond  before the O.Ps. to get the maturity  amount.

.         Since we award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the O.Ps after the due date, 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  45 days  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order . Service the  copies of the order to the parties as per rule. 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this      ^.28th.            day     of       August , 2020.

 

 

 

Member.                                                         Member.                                             President