Orissa

Cuttak

CC/141/2022

Kabita Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sector Manager/Asst. Manager worker,Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M K Pati & associates

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

                IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.141/2022

1.       Kabita Sahoo,

                      W/o: Sri Durga Prasad Sahoo.

 

2.       Durga Prasad Sahoo,

           S/o: Shri Ananta Charan Sahoo,

                       (Both complainants are resident of

                        At: Mahamadia Bazxar,Chandini Chowk,

                        P.S:Lalbag,Cuttack Sadar,

                        Cuttack Town,Dist:Cuttack.                                                       ... Complainants.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.        The Sector Manager/Asst. Manager worker,                                                                                                                                           Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

        And Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

        (Sahara India),Choudhury Bazar Sector 1352,

        P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Cantonment Road,

        Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753001.

 

2.     The Regional Manager,Worker.                             

         Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

         Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

         And Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

         (Sahara India) Territorial Office,Plot No.50,

         Sahidnagar,P.O/P.S:Sahidnagar,

         Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda,Pin-751007.

 

3.     The Zonal Manager Worker,

                     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          And Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

          (Sahara India), Plot No.50,

          Sahidnagar,P.O/P.S:Sahidnagar,

          Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda,Pin-751007.

 

4.       The Authorized Person,

           Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

          (Sahara India) Regd. Office,Sahara India Bhawan,

          1 Kapoorthala Complex,Aliganj,

           Lucknow,226420,Uttar Pradesh.

 

5.        The Authorized Person,

           Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

           (Sahara India) Regd. Office,Mangal Jyoti,

           101,227/2 AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,

           West Bengal-700020.

 

6.       The Authorized Person,

           Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd.,

           (Sahara India),Regd. Office 195,Zone-1,

           In front of D.B.Mall,

           M.P Nagar,Bhopal,Madhyapradesh-462011.

 

                7.     Managing Worker and Chairman of Sahara India Paribar,

            Sahara IndiaBhawan,1 Kapoorthala Complex,

           Aliganj,Lucknow-226024,Uttar Pradesh.                      ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     15.07.2022

                Date of Order:    04.09.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. M.K.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                        

The complainants are members of one family.  The case of the complainants in short is that the complainant no.1 had invested money in sixteen nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificate in different schemes of the O.Ps.  i.e. Rs.3,09,676/- on 30.5.2016, having A/c. no.13526413792 under “Golden A Double 64” scheme to be matured on 30.09.2021  having maturity value of Rs.6,19,352/- but since the complainant no.1 took loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.9.2018 and after adjustment of  loan amount and delayed payment  charges, she is entitled to get rest of the amount i.e., Rs.3,53,987/-.   She has also deposited Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/-,Rs.8,000/-,Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8250/-,Rs.4857/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- on different schemes of the O.Ps having A/c No.13524807092, No.13524807091 , No.13526415634, No.13526415632, No.13526415637,No.13526415639, No.13526415642, No.13527308247,No.13526900383, No.13526900384, No.13526900385, No.13526900386, No.13526900387, No.13526900388, No.13526900389 on payment of Rs.10,000/-,Rs.15,000/-,Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.8,250/-, Rs.4857/-, Rs.8,000/-  , Rs.8,000/-  , Rs.8,000/- , Rs.8,000/- , Rs.8,000/- , Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- respectively for several months as mentioned against each of the said certificates.  The complainant no.2 also invested money in two nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates and  also deposited Rs.1,31,572/- in the “Golden A Double(64)” scheme of O.Ps,having A/c. No.13526413838 on 31.5.2016 which was to be matured 30.9.21 and the maturity value was of Rs.2,63,144/- and deposited Rs.10,290/- in the “Super BB” scheme of O.Ps having A/c. No.13527308246 on 31.10.2018, which was to be matured on 31.10.2021 having maturity value was of Rs.17,264/-. The maturity period of the certificates was mentioned against each of the said Fixed Deposit Certificates. On maturity, the complainants were entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 8,88,344/- towards the maturity amount.  The complainants have filed copy of the fixed deposit certificates by annexing them as Annexure-1 series as well as have filed calculation sheet showing deposit and maturity amount vide Annexure-2 series.  After the maturity date, the complainants in order to get their matured amount from the O.Ps had visited the office  of the O.Ps on many occasions  but the O.Ps did not release their maturity amount.  Hence, the complainants have filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to pay their maturity amount in the certificates calculated as  Rs. 8,88,344/- alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum as would be calculated and admissible to the respective accounts under Annexure-1 series as well as compensation of Rs.90,000/- towards mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards their litigation expenses.

             The complainants have filed some documents in order to prove their case as well as evidence on affidavit in support of their case. 

2.         The O.Ps filed written version without executing the same through their learned counsel, who only signed the same but he had not filed Vakalatnama.  As such the written version filed by the O.Ps is not accepted.  Hence, all the O.Ps were set exparte                   vide  order dt 25.4.2023

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.              Whether the case of the complainants is maintainable?

ii.             Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.            Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them ?

Point no.i.

The Opp.Parties are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainants are members of the O.Ps.  Hence, the question arose whether the dispute between the complainants and the O.Ps is  maintainable before this Commission as there is provision in the said Multi State Co-operative Society Act,2002 for redressal of grievances of the complainants against the O.Ps.  In this regard the learned counsel for the complainants relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to maintainability of his case reported in AIR 2004(SC) 448, in the case of the Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vrs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others, wherein The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is arbitration clause in the Cooperative Societies Act, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as there is no provision in the said Co-operative Society Act ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission.  He also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021 SC,70 in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. Vrs. Anil Patni and others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that RERA Act does not debar for adjudication of dispute by the Consumer Commission for redressal of grievances of the complainant relating to the Real Estate matter.  Hence the Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to the Real Estate matter.  The complainants also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022)6 SCC,496 in the case of Voda Phone, Idea Cellular Ltd. Vrs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if there is provision U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, the aggrieved person can approach the Consumer Commission as the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is not ousted U/S-7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 

At this juncture, it is relevant to go through the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019.  In Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

In view of the Sec-100 of the C.P.Act,2019 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the case of the complainants is maintainable before this Commission.

Point No.ii.

The averments as made by the complainants in their complaint petition gains ample corroboration from the documentary evidence filed by them.

Admittedly, the complainantno.1 had purchased 16 nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates & the complainant No.2 had purchased two nos. of Fixed Deposit certificates having different A/c numbers in different schemes of the O.Ps as mentioned against each of the said Fixed Deposit Certificates under Annexure-1  series.  The complainants have filed detailed calculation sheet of maturity amount under Annexure-2 series showing the total maturity amount as Rs.8,88,344/-/- of all the Fixed Deposit Certificates. The contention of the complainants are supported with xerox copy of Fixed Deposit certificates filed by them.

It is not disputed that the complainant no.1 had purchased 16  numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates and the complainant no.2 had purchased two nos. of Fixed Deposit  certificates from the O.Ps on payment of Rs.5,71,685/-.  The maturity date of the said certificates/bonds were clearly mentioned in the said certificates, which were already matured in the respective due dates.     The O.Ps had not given the complainants the matured amount after the maturity period.  The complainants had approached the O.Ps many times to get their maturity amount but they did not give the matured amount of their certificate, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, learned counsel for the complainants have relied upon a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2001(3) CPR, 194(NC) in the case of Smt. Kalawati & others Vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft & Credit Society Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that non-refund of fixed deposit after maturity comes under the deficiency in service.  This decision is applicable in the present case.  The complainants had invested money with the O.Ps for earning interest.  The complainants would have earned interest if they would have invested their money in any other private sector or public sector undertaking.  But in the present case the O.Ps did not give the matured amount by which  the complainants were deprived of getting their principal amount as well as interest component.   Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as had adopted unfair trade practice by not releasing the matured amount of the Fixed Deposit Certificates as well as monthly deposit certificates of the complainants after its maturity period.  This issue is answered in favour of the complainants. 

Point no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainants is definitely maintainable and the complainants are entitled to get the maturity amount of their 18 numbers of Fixed Deposit certificates in total.  The complainants have filed the detailed calculation sheet of the maturity amount and have filed the same by marking it as Annexure-2 series in their complaint petition.  The calculations as made by the complainants is not controverted.  Hence, the calculations as made in the Annexure-2 series is deemed to be a genuine one as per the scheme of the O.Ps.  In view of the discussions made above, as well as of the calculations made in Annexure-2 series, the complainants are entitled to get the total maturity amount of Rs.8,88,344/- with the interest component.    Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

The case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the total matured amount of Rs. 8,88,344/- of 18 numbers of Fixed Deposit certificates issued by them under the under the different scheme having different A/c. no. as per the Annexue-1 series to the complainants basing upon their respective Fixed Deposit A/c No. alongwith interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the date of maturity as mentioned in each of the Fixed Deposit Certificates respectively till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards the compensation amount for mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainants.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^th   day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                           Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President.