The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 4,07,036 /- including interest, compensation and litigation cost.

The fact of the case , in brief , is that the Opposite Parties being renowned Registered Society “Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited” under Sahara India Pariwar and its Registered Branch Franchisee compelled to invest a total sum of Rs.2,28,o86/- by issuing 19 policies nos. “ F 30 Golden KF “  policy certificates but after elapse of stipulated time the opposite parties neither returned the actual invested amount nor provided the interest of the invested amount as mentioned in the investment policy to the complainants. The complainant approached before the Opposite Parties on several occasions to return the maturity amount and also sent letter to them in this regard by registered post but the opposite parties did not pay any heed. Having no alternative, the complainant was compelled to file the instant case for relief.

 Notices was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notices, the Opposite Parties appeared before this commission and filed their written version.

By filing written version, the opposite Parties denied the material allegation of the complainant  and submitted that the complainant is not a consumer so, the instant case is not maintainable in the eye of law . The opposite Parties further submitted that the reason of the non- payment of the maturity amount to the complainant, is the Embargo imposed upon the movable and immovable properties of the Opposite Parties by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India.  There is no merit in the complaint so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

To prove his case , the complainant has filed 19 original “ F30 Golden KF “ policies Dated 27.02.2016,29.02.2016 and 23.05.2016 total amounting to Rs.2,28,086/-  and a letter addressed to the O.P. No.1 along with postal receipt.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration. 

                         POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

          1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

          2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

          3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

                            DECISION  WITH  REASONS

              We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the other materials on record.           

           At the time of argument, Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint. He further submitted that all the 19 original policy certificates issued by the Opposite Parties have been produced before this commission and the same have not been denied by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have intentionally and wilfully harassed the Complainant by not making maturity amount in time so, the Complainant should be compensated. The complainant has successfully proved his case . Hence, the Complaint should be allowed. 

           On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant is a policy holder of Sahara India Pariwar. The Opposite Parties have no intention not to pay the money to the Complainant but due to the Embargo on the total assets of the Sahara India Pariwar by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Opposite Parties failed to pay the maturity amount to the Complainant in time. 

          Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1      

         This point has not been raised by Ld advocate for the Opposite Parties at the time of argument. However, on perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Opposite Parties have admitted that the Complainant is a policy holder of Sahara India Pariwar. If that be the so, then there is no hesitation to say that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties under the provision of the C.P. Act. 

                Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3     

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

            It appears from the record that the Complainant has invested Rs.2,28,086/- in the Sahara India Pariwar and against that amount the Opposite Parties have issued 12 “ F36 Golden VM “ and 7 “ 30 Golden KF “ policy certificates  to the Complainant which particulars are as follows,

Date of Investment   Invested Amount   Nature of Certificate   Date of Maturity    MaturityAmount 

27.02.2016          -  Rs.  12878 /-     - F 36 Golden VM       27.02.2019                   Rs. 19781 /- 

     “                      -  Rs.  12722 /-            “                            “                                   Rs. 19541 /- 

     “                      -  RS.13145 /-              “                            “                                   Rs. 20191 /- 

     “                      -   Rs.12587 /-              “                           “                                    Rs. 19334 /- 

     “                      -  Rs.12984 /-               “                           “                                    Rs.19943 /- 

     “                       - Rs. 12666 /-              “                           “                                    Rs.19455 /-   

     “                       - Rs.12742 /-                “                          “                                    Rs.19572 /- 

    “                        - Rs.12580 /-                “                          “                                    Rs.19323 /- 

    “                        - Rs.12580 /-                “                          “                                    Rs19323 /-     

29.02.2016           -  Rs.10161 /-               “                 28.02.202019                          Rs.15607 /- 

   “                         - Rs.10161 /-                “                         “                                      Rs.15607 /-  

23.05.2016           - Rs.12339 /-                “                  23.05.2019                              Rs.18953 /-     

27.02.2016           - Rs.11535 /-       F 30 Golden KF   27.08.2018                              Rs.16523 /-   

  “                          - Rs.11670 /-               “                          “                                       Rs.16716 /- 

  “                          - Rs.1158                    “                          “                                       Rs.16596 /-   

  “                          - Rs.11586                  “                          “                                       Rs.16596 /-  

  “                           -Rs.11501 /-               “                         “                                        Rs.16474 /- 

  “                          - Rs.11416 /-               “                         “                                        Rs.16352 /-      

  “                          - Rs.11247 /-               “                         “                                        Rs.16110 /-                                     

Total                       Rs.3,41,997 /-                                                                      Total    Rs.2,28,086 /- 

 The above mentioned facts goes to show that the Complainant invested Rs.2,28,086 /- in Sahara India Pariwar and the Complainant was entitled to get the maturity amount of Rs.3,41,997 /- after the maturity of the said policies but the Opposite Parties failed to pay the same. After the maturity of the said policies, the Complainant approached on several occasions before the Opposite Parties and lastly on 29.06.2019 sent a letter through registered post in spite of that the Opposite Parties did not pay the maturity amount intentionally on the plea of Embargo.

 In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bonafide consumer to the Opposite Parties and the act of non-payment of the invested amount with the accrued interest, compelled this commission to hold that the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            That the Consumer Case No. 77 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part but with cost. 

           The Opposite Party no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,41,997 /- as maturity value of the invested amount with an interest @ 8 % p.a. till the realization by issuing an account payee cheque infavour of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 /- towards litigation cost failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law. 

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.