Orissa

Cuttak

CC/116/2022

Urmila Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M K Pati & associates

02 Sep 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.116/2022

 

1.    Urmila Behera,

W/o: Sri Mukunda Behera.

 

2.    Mukunda Behera,

S/o: Late Kusei Behera,

 

(Both complainants are resident of

Near Kusumdevi Women’s College,

Darkhapatna,At/PO:Kalyaninagar,

P.S:Madhupatna,Cuttack Town,

Dist:Cuttack-753012.                                                 ... 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,

           Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,

           (Sahara India) Regd. Office,Mangal Jyoti,

           101,227/2 AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,

           West Bengal-700020.

 

 

5.       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.

 

 

            6.        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:     10.06.2022

Date of Order:     02.09.2023

 

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

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.  

The case of the complainants in short is that complainant no.1 had invested money by purchasing six nos. of  Fixed Deposit Certificates such as certificate bearing A/c. No.13526903639 on payment of Rs.10,000/- on 30.12.2016, A/c. No. 13526903638 on payment of Rs.10,000/- on 30.12.2016, No.13526416979 on payment of Rs.11,000/- on 11.08.2016, No.13526412634 on payment of Rs.13,000/- on 10.05.2016, under “Golden A Double” scheme, No.13527308147 on payment of Rs.11,900/- on 20.10.2018, No.135207308148 on payment of Rs.11,900/- on 20.10.2018 under “Super BB” scheme, and complainant no.2 had invested money in two nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates  such as certificate having A/c. No.13526905702 on payment of Rs.17,500/-  for 64 months under “Golden A Double” scheme and A/c. No. 13527304312 on payment of Rs.12,250/-  for 36 months under “SUPER BB” Scheme  of the O.Ps.  The maturity period for the said Fixed Deposit certificates were mentioned against each of the certificates.  On maturity, the complainant no.1 was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,76,200/- in total towards the six nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates on the dates as mentioned against each of the Fixed Deposit certificates and Complainant no.2 was entitled to get Rs.75,000/- towards the maturity amount in respect of two nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates.  Both the complainants are entitled to get Rs.2,51,200/- in total with extra benefits towards the maturity value of their certificates.   Details of scheme and A/c. particular, opening date of A/c., maturity date, deposit amount and maturity amount has been reflected in Annexure-1 & 2 as filed by the complainants.   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. 2,51,200/- alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards their litigation expenses.

          The complainants have filed some documents in order to prove their case as well as evidence on affidavit, further affidavit by clarifying the calculation of maturity amount in support of their case.

2.       The O.Ps did not  file their written version.  Hence, they were 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 complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?

Point no.i.

The O.Ps have participated in the hearing of the case and argued that they are Co-operative Societies constituted under Multistate Co-operative Society Act,2002 and the complainant is a member of the O.Ps.  Hence, the question arose whether any dispute between the complainant 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 complainant against the O.Ps. The learned counsel for the O.Ps relied upon some decisions of Hon’ble National Commission as well as of Hon’ble High Court.  In contrary, in this regard the learned counsel for the complainant 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 complainant 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.  The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Law of land and would prevail upon decisions of Hon’ble National Commission as well as other decisions as relied upon by the O.Ps.

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 complainant 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, both the complainants had purchased eight numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates of different scheme of the O.Ps as per Annexure-1.  The contention of the complainants is supported with xerox copy of Fixed Deposit certificates as filed by them.

It is not disputed that the complainants had purchased eight nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates from the O.Ps. The maturity date of the said Fixed Deposit certificates/bonds was clearly mentioned as against each of the said certificates, which were due on the dates mentioned in the certificates.      The O.Ps had not given the complainants the matured amount of Fixed Deposit Certificates after the maturity period on their request.  The complainants had approached the O.Ps many times to get their maturity amount but they did not give the matured amount of their certificates, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  In this context, learned counsel for the complainant 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 after its maturity period in favour of the complainants.  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 the maturity amount in respect of their Fixed Deposit Certificates as claimed by them.  The complainants have filed calculation sheet indicating maturity amount therein, as per Annexure-2 series.  The complainants have filed further affidavit by clarifying the calculation made in Annexure-2 series.  The calculation as made in Annexure-2 series is found to be correct being not controverted.  It reveals from the Annexure-2 series that the complainants were entitled to get total amount of Rs.2,51,200/- towards the maturity amount of their eight nos. of fixed deposit certificates which includes extra benefit.    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 total matured amount of Rs.2,51,200/-  in respect of the eight nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates as per the Annexure-e series as mentioned against each of the A/c No. to the complainants alongwith interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the respective date of maturity of each of the said certificates till the final payment is made.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- 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 2^nd day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.               

                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                Member.

 

 

                                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                            President.