West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/54/2020

Mr. Arup Sarkar, S/O- Late Suresh Chandra Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sector Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Balurghat Sector - Opp.Party(s)

Debashis Barman

11 Feb 2022

ORDER

The brief facts of the complaint case is that the complainant is an investor of Sahara India Pariwar under Balurghat Sector code no 6038, Dakshin Dinajpur. The complainant invested the total amount of Rs 50,000/-(16000+17000+17000) in three different polices under the scheme of Sahara E Shine of Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.  on 13.04.2012  for a period of 96 months against which the opposite party issued three certificates and the maturity date of the above investments was on 13.04.2020 and the maturity amount was Rs 130600/-(41792+ +44,404/- +44,404/-) respectively.  After the date of maturity of the above said investments, the complainant went to the office of the O.P. several times and submits his prayer for withdrawal of the maturity amount. But the office of the O.P. refused to give the receive copy. Thereafter the complainant send his prayer for claim of the maturity amount to the O.P. through the registered post, vide postal receipt no. EW882572171IN ON 07/10/2020. Thereafter in different occasions the complainant went to the office of the O.P.  for getting his maturity amount of the aforesaid investments. But in every occasion the O.P. took a new plea.  Till today the O.P. did not pay the maturity amount to the complainant. Finding no other alternatives the complainant files this instant case against the O.P. u/s 35 of C.P.Act,2019 claiming the maturity amount of Rs.( 41,792/- +44,404/- + 44,404/-)= Rs 1,30,600/- along with interest and benefits as per the terms & conditions laid down in the scheme of Sahara E Shine, compensation of Rs 30,000/- for mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.   

            Notice was issued upon the O.P. and the O.P. entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint are denied and it has been contended inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the O.P. that due to some litigation pending with SEBI and the Apex Court regarding the financial transaction of the O.P. group imposed embargo on the movable immovable properties due to which the payment has remained stopped and the O.P. crave leave of this Commission and prays for dismissal of the instant case.  

            In this case complainant has submitted examination in chief supported by affidavit together with original copy of following three Certificates by firisti

Sl No.	Certificate No.	Date	Amount	Maturity value
1.	351003310726	13.04.2012	Rs.17000/-	Rs.44,404/-
2. 3.	351003310727 351003310728	13.04.2012 13.04.2012	Rs  17000 Rs.16000/-	Rs.44,404/- Rs.41,792/-

             

           O.P. had also submitted examination in chief of OPW-1 Joy Dutta Gupta by way of affidavit but no document is submitted on the side of the O.P.     

                      Points for discussion

 

1. Is the complainant a consumer to the opposite parties?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

 

                        DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

Point No.1 This is admitted that complainant invested a total sum of Rs. (16,000+ 17,000+ 17,000 ) = Rs 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) under  the scheme of Sahara E Shine of  Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. of the opposite parties, So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under section 2  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

 

 Point No.2 & 3 These two issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. This is admitted fact that the complainant had invested total amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) under the scheme of Sahara E Shine of Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd of opposite party on 13.04.2012 for a period of 96 months against which the opposite party duly issued three certificates to the complainant. This is also admitted fact that the maturity period of 96 months was already over on 13.04.2020. This is also not disputed that the complainant has not yet received any single furthering from the O.P. against the aforesaid investments.

We have looked into the complaint, the written version of the O.P. and evidence filed by the parties minutely. All these reveal that the complainant is a bona-fide consumer of the O.P. and he is entitled to get maturity amount of Rs.(41792+44,404+44,404) = Rs 1,30,600/- (one lakh thirty thousand six hundred only)  together with interest as per terms and condition of the aforesaid scheme but the O.P. had violated the terms and conditions and there is no denial of the fact about lack of responsibility in discharging his duty on the part of the O.P. and their lies deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Accordingly all the points are decided in favour of the complainant against the O.P. Thus all the points are disposed of.

   Hence, it is

                                                          O R D E R E D

             That the Consumer complaint Case No.54/2020 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the O.P. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs1,30,600.00 (one lakh thirty thousand six hundred only) as maturity value of the invested amount together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The O.P. is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost in default complainant has liberty to execute the order as per law.  

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