Orissa

Cuttak

CC/142/2022

Prashanta Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M K Pati & associates

16 Aug 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.142/2022

 

1.        Prashanta Kumar Rath,

S/o: Late Keshab Chandra Rath.

 

2.         Sunita Rath,

W/o: Sri Prashanta Kumar Rath,

 

Both are of resident

At:Bamphi Sahi,VTC Cuttack Sadar,

P.O:Telenga Bazar,P.S:Puri Ghat,

Cuttack Town,Dist:Cuttack-753009.                           ... 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, Infront of D.B.Mall,

           M.P.Nagar,Bhopal,Madhypradesh-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:    16.08.2023

 

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

For the O.Ps.             :                      None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                    

          The complainants are husband and wife by relation.  The case of the complainant no.1 in short is that he had invested money by purchasing four nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates of different schemes of the O.Ps.  The certificates bearing A/c. No.13526801469, No. 13527306268, No. 13527307527, No. 13526420964 were purchased by the complainant no.1 by depositing money as mentioned against each of the certificate on different dates which were to be matured on the dates as mentioned against each of the certificates.  The complainant no.2 alleged to have invested money in R.D in one of the monthly schemes of O.Ps by opening A/c No. 13524201239 with the O.Ps and the maturity date was mentioned in the said Pass Book.  It is stated by the complainants that they had invested total amount of Rs.82,052/- with the O.Ps and as per the respective schemes and they are entitled to get the total maturity value of Rs. 1,30,441/- from the O.Ps.  The complainants have filed the calculation sheet by annexing it as Annexure-2 series in their complaint petition, wherein the details of the scheme, deposited amount as well as the maturity has been calculated.  It is stated by the complainants that after the maturity date, they 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 as per their respective schemes, which is  calculated as  Rs. 1,30,441/- alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment alongwith 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, further evidence on affidavit by clarifying the calculation of maturity amount in support of their case.

2.       The O.Ps did not file their respective written versions.  Hence, they are set exparte. 

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  and if they had practised any unfair trade?

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

Point no.i.

The O.Ps 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 any 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 learned counsel of 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 complainant no.1 had purchased four nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates as well as the complainant no.2 had deposited money in one of the monthly schemes of the O.Ps. In total they had paid Rs.82,052/- to the O.Ps as mentioned against each of the four nos. of Fixed Deposit certificates as well as in the ledger statement issued in case of monthly deposit scheme. The contention of the complainants is supported with xerox copy of Fixed Deposit certificates as well as xerox copy of pass book and ledger statement in respect of the monthly schemes, as filed by them.

It is not disputed that the complainant no.1 had purchased four nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Ps as well as the complainant no.2 had deposited money in one of the monthly schemes of the O.Ps.    The maturity date of the said certificates/bonds as well as of the monthly scheme were clearly mentioned in the said certificates as well as in the Pass Book in case of monthly deposited scheme, which were due on the dates as mentioned against each of the certificates and Pass Book in case of monthly scheme. The O.Ps had not given the complainants their 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, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, learned counsel for the complainants has 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 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 complainant no.1 is entitled to get the maturity amount of his four nos. of Fixed Deposit certificates as well as the complainant no.2 is entitled to get the maturity amount in respect of monthly schemes of the O.Ps.  The complainants have filed the detailed calculation sheet of the maturity amount and have filed the same by marking as Annexure-2 series in their complaint petition.  They have filed further evidence on affidavit by clarifying the calculations as made.  The calculations as made by the complainants are not controverted.  Hence, the calculations as made by the complainants 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, the complainants are entitled to get the total maturity amount of Rs.1,30.441/- besides the interest component.    Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the complainants respectively the total matured amount of Rs. 1,30.441/- of the four nos. of Fixed Deposit certificates purchased by the complainant no.1 from the O.Ps as well as of one of the monthly schemes of O.Ps opened by the complainant no.2 alongwith interest thereon @ 8% per annum from their respective date of maturity till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation 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 16^th day of August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                  Member.

 

 

                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                               President.