The Complainant has filed this case u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the O.P. and praying for the following order/relief, namely:-
- Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs, 31,360/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only) to the Complainant towards her legitimately receivable fixed deposit maturity amount together with up to date interest.
- Direction against the O.P. for payment of overdue interest @ 12 % per annum upon the aforesaid amount till the date of its recovery.
- Direction against the O.P. for payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant, as compensation against the continuous mental stress, agony caused to the complainant.
- Direction against the O.P. for payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards litigation cost.
- Direction against the O.P. to pay to the complainant a total amount of Rs. 31,360/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 1,31,360/-
The case of the Complainant is that she had fixed deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 13.06.2018 under “ Golden 24” scheme with the O.P. for a period of 24 months / O.P. had issued a ‘ Deposit Certificate’ bearing receipt no. 665018413231 and Hologram bearing in No. 992721502889, Certificate No- 438000251789 / Total Maturity amount receivable by the Complainant from the O.P. after due maturity period of 24 months i.e. on 13.06.2020, being Rs, 31,360/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only). The further case of the Complainant is that immediately after attaining the date of maturity of the aforesaid Fixed Deposit amount the Complainant visited the O.P. on 13.06.2020, requests the Branch Manager for settle her legitimate claims of Rs. 31,360/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only). But the O.P. deliberately failed and neglected to settle the Complainants legitimate claim. The Complainant thereafter sent letter dated 13.07.2020 to the O.P. requesting him to arrange payment of the matured amount together with up to date interest but the O.P. despite having received the letter of the Complainant remained silent over the entire issue and ignored to settle the Complainant’s legitimate claims.
In support of the Complaint the Complainant filed the following documents.
- Photocopies of ‘Deposit Certificate’ bearing Receipt No. 665018413231 for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five thousand) only, on 13.06.2018, and bearing Hologram No. 992721502889, Certificate No. 438000251789, issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant.
- Photocopy of the letter dated 13.07.2020 issued by the Complainant (by hand) in favour of the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party.
Notice was issued from this Commission for the O.P. On receipt of notice the O.P. appeared before this Commission through Vokalatnama , filed Written Version , denied all the material allegations of the Complainant and has stated that only to grab huge amount of compensation the Complainant has filed this case suppressing the material facts. In the Written Version the O.P. has stated that the O.P. is a society and the relation between the Complainant and society is that of a member and society and not of a Consumer and service provider, therefore, for any dispute between the society and its member the Consumer Complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission. The O.P. has also stated that, there is no provision in the Consumer protection act, 2019 regarding the Member of Co-operative Society as Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not give right to a member of society to claim himself as a Consumer of the Society. The O.P. has also stated that the Complainant neither pay nor promised to pay any consideration of the Society by the obtaining any service of the Society and the Society never agreed or promised to Provide any service to the Complainant.
The O.P. in their Written Version has also stated that, in the present case the dispute if any, between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is between the Member and Society, therefore in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Court, Hon’ble National Commission, Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble District Commission in this type of cases this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present Complaint and that’s why the present Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and therefore this case is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?
All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.
Decision with reasons:-
All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.
In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the Written Deposition the Complainant has specifically corroborated the Complaint and has stated on which day she purchased the Fixed Deposit Certificate from the O.P., also narrated the date of Maturity. The Complainant has also stated on which day she went to the O.P. for demanding the maturity amount in respect of her Fixed Deposit Certificate. The Complainant has also stated in her evidence that she sent written letter to the O.P. on 13.07.2020 for settlement of her claim but the O.P. paid no heed and make no payment till today.
At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P. not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.
Ld. Advocate of the O.P. during argument submits that, this case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer as the Complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. He also argued that the O.P. is a society which was formed and duly constituted under provisions of Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. He further argued that the Complainant was a member under the Society (O.P.) and their relation is not as a Consumer and service provider / if any disputes arises between the member and society it will be decided as per the provisions of Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Section 84), not as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Ld. Advocate of the O.P. praying for dismissal of this case.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant and other materials on record it reveals that, this Commission gave opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions. In view of that the Complainant has adduced evidence in the Form of an Affidavit. But the O.P. to falsify the case of the Complainant did not adduce any evidence in support of their Written Version.
We have heard, the Ld. Advocate of the parties, have gone through the plaint, Written Version, Brief Notes of Argument very carefully.
Firstly we will consider the objection of the O.P. on the point as to whether the Complainant being a member of a society will fall within the definition Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 or not ? in this regard we can refer a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it held that the disputes between Co-operative Society and its member regarding deficiency in Service can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act vide the case of The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society Vs. M Lalitha (Dead) through LRs (Appeal, Civil 92 of 1998) decided on 11.12.2003.
It was also decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virender Jain Versus Alkananda Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 383 it was held that dispute raises by the members of the society can be decided by the Consumer Forum.
In view of those decisions and other materials on record we are of the view that the plea taken by the O.P. stands rejected and this Commission has sufficient Jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint as a Consumer dispute and thereby this case is maintainable.
Ld. Advocate of the O.P. in the Written Version and during argument claimed that, this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this case on the grounds that, in the contract between the Complainant and the O.P. there is arbitration clause which is contained in the terms and conditions of the contract. But the said point has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Aftab Singh – Versus- Emaar MGFLand Limited & anr being Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015 Vide Order dt. 13.07.2017 wherein it was held that, an arbitration clause in the Agreements cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum notwithstanding the Amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Against that Order Civil Appeals bearing in No. 23512-23513 of 2017 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
But the said Appeal was dismissed on 13.02.2018. Against that Order Review Petition being No. 2629-2630 of 2018 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on10.12.2018 that Review Application was also dismissed. In view of the above the objection raised by the O.P. regarding the jurisdiction point is also rejected.
In the case in hand there is no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was not provided with the Investment Certificate. It is also not denied / disputed that, the Complainant did not deposit the Sum of money to the O.P. It is also admitted fact that, the O.P. on receiving the sum of money issued one deposit certificates.
It is also admitted fact that, the maturity period of that Certificate has already been completed. From thatInvestment Certificate it is found that, the Complainant invested money with the O.P. under the belief that, she will get return thereof by the way of interest, which will be payable to the Complainant by the maturity date which is mentioned in the Investment Certificate. But the O.P. did not pay any farthing to the Complainant even long after maturity period of that Investment Certificate. Even on several occasions the Complainant requested the O.P. for settlement of that matter, even she sent letter to the O.P. in writing requesting for making payment of maturity amount along with interest but the O.P. did not pay any amount of money to the Complainant. By not making payment of maturity amount, even after utilizing the money deposited by the Complainant, the O.P. is deficient in providing service and also indulges unfair trade practice and the same caused mental pain, agony, financial loss to the Complainant.
Considering all we are of the view that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P.
Hence, it is therefore,
O R D E R E D
That, the instant Consumer Case being in No. 48/2022 is hereby allowed in part on contest. The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 31,360/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only) towards legitimately receivable fixed deposit maturity amount.
The O.P. is also directed to pay the Complainant interest @ 9 % per annum with effect from 13/06/2020 till making payment of the entire amount.
The O.P. is also directed to pay the Complainant litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. The OP is directed to pay the above stated amount within 30 days from this day failing which the Complainant is at liberty to take steps against the OP as per law.
Let a copy of this order be given to parties free of cost.
