Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Hon’ble Member:-
The case of the complainant Sri Dilip Das is that he is an ordinary resident working for livelihood and the O.P. 1 is the non-banking credit cooperative society registered as Hamara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Sahara India having it;s registered office at Rajpur Nabin Nibas PO : Rajpur, Sonarpur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 700149 alongwith their office bearer Sri Debabrata Chakraborty and against their agent Sri Sanatan Debnath as OP2.
The case of the complainant as averred is that a three numbers of fixed deposit for Rs. 2,500/- dated 14.10.2016, Rs. 7,797/- dated 29.10.2016 and Rs. 34,219/- dated 31.10.2016 were purchased by the complainant for a maturity value of Rs. 89,032/- in total with maturity period on 14.02.2022 / 28.02.2022. But the OPs are not refunding money upon maturity. Hence, the complainant prays for refund of the maturity amount alleging deficiency in service along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost.
The complainant exhibited the copy of said FD certificates and correspondences with CA & FBP department but of no avail.
The O.Ps though filed W/V but did not participate in the proceedings thereafter neither filed evidence. In their W/V, the OPs by appearing through their Ld. Advocate contended inter-alia that the case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and this consumer commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The O.P.s have denied the allegations made out in the complainant. The OPs prays for dismissal of the Complaint.
As neither of the parties appeared for advancing the final arguments nor filed BNAs, hence the complaint case was perused and considered on merit read with available records and documents.
On perusal of records it is observed that the as per the complaint case and W/V on record, following are the points which requires to be determined for proper adjudication of the case at t’s first place :
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Have the O.Ps. any deficiency in service as alleged ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point no. 1:
The complaint petition filed by the complainant and the W/V by contesting OPs challenging maintainability of the complaint case is taken up. The complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the O.Ps. for consideration by opening 3 (three) fixed deposit accounts for Rs. 2,500/- dated 14.10.2016, Rs. 7,797/- dated 29.10.2016 and Rs. 34,219/- dated 31.10.2016.
The OPs in the W/V opposed by stating that the complainant is not a consumer and this consumer commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We have gone through the written complaint and the W/V and the acts referred by the Ld. Advocate for the contesting OPs. We have placed our reliance on various decisions of higher forums wherein it is observed that complaint case against Cooperative Society is maintainable since the disputes between the members of the Cooperative Society and the Cooperative Society itself can be decided by the Consumer Commissions as below :-
- Hon’ble Supreme Court order on Thirumurugan Cooperative Agri Society Ltd. Vs M.Lalitha
- Hon’ble Supreme Court order on Virender Jain Vs Alakananda Copperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
- Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of KB Magdum VS Baleshivappasasalatti & two Ors. dated 22.02.2019
Sec 100 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019 (or CP Act 1986) is not in derogation but in addition to any other Law. On a careful consideration from the materials on the record and with due regard to the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs and on hearing the submission of both sides.
Hence we are inclined to opine that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint case is quite maintainable.
Point nos. 2 and 3:
Both the point no 2 and 3 are taken up together for the sake of brevity. And to avoid repetitions.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant had 3 fixed deposit accounts with the OP cooperative as described in point (1) above. It is urged that the OPs may be directed to pay the maturity amount. and prays for passing appropriate order.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the contesting O.Ps admits in W/V that the complainant have 3 fixed deposits as described and the total maturity amount is also not on contest . But it is submitted that the Cooperative Society is facing financial crisis and being a member the complainant should have not pressed for refunds upon maturity of FDs. He pleaded that the compliant case is not maintainable before this consumer commission and prayed for dismissal of this complaint case.
Gone through the written complaint petition, written version and the documents filed by both sides. Admittedly, the complainant had a three fixed deposits and the OPs have failed to make payments of the matured values. It is also apparent from the exhibits and copies of FD receipts. There is no denial on factum that OPs did not repay against the matured amount of fixed deposits. But there is no whisper about the payments of the complainant’s money by the OPs and rather. On a careful consideration, we find that the OP cooperative has caused deficiency in services as the said matured amount has not been refunded to the complainant in spite of repeated requests.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.Ps have caused caused deficiency in services by not returning the legitimate money to the complainant upon maturity of fixed deposit and the complainant is entitled to get back the matured value of the three fixed deposits along with a compensation and cost. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP no 1 and OP no 2 on jointly and / or severally basis.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP 1 and OP 2 with cost.
The O.Ps represented by the O.P. no. 1 and OP no 2 are jointly and/or severally liable and be directed to make payments to the complainant Sri Dilip Das s/o Sri Tapan Das as follows :-
- Refund the matured amounts of 3 (three) number of fixed deposits for total Rs. 89,032/-
- Make payment of a compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 28.02.2022 till the day of actual realisation for causing mental agony.
- Make payment of a Cost of Rs 5,000/-.
All the above three amounts as per Sl (i) , Sl (ii) and Sl (iii) are payable within 60 days from the date of this order, I/D the complainant is entitled to file execution case for decree on the entire payable amount.
Let a copy of Final order be supplied to both the parties / their Agents/ Ld. Advocates free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
