Consumer forum directs co-op society to refund FD amount with interest

Ludhiana: Holding non-payment of maturity amount of fixed deposit as deficiency of service, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a cooperative society to refund the amount to the complainant, along with Rs 10,000 as a composite cost. The commission has directed Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited Aliganj in Lucknow through it’s chairman/president/authorized signatory and the Ludhiana branch to pay the maturity amount of Rs 1,61,989 with 8% interest per annum from May 22, 2020 till date of actual payment to Kailash Rani of Kirti Nagar in Ludhiana.As per the complainant, in Nov 2018, the agent of the opposite parties approached her and lured her to deposit her savings with them, claiming to be a big company and providing best financial services in the market. They said if the complainant chooses to avail their services, she would certainly be able to have a secured financial future for herself and her family members. Lured by the offer, the complainant invested Rs 1,38,334 in a fixed deposit plan of the opposite parties. The agent of the opposite parties also got some blank papers signed from the complainant in good faith. The opposite parties issued certificate number in favour of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that the complainant would get a interest and will get maturity amount, along with interest on May 22, 2020. On the completion of the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the amount, but the opposite parties kept the matter pending on one pretext and another, despite the complainant’s repeated requests and visits to their office. Thereafter, she filed the complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and further prayed for refund of the amount of Rs 1,38,334 along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs 5,00,000 on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses.The opposite parties filed a joint written statement by taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties is a society duly registered under Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant being member of the society cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.Court’s VerdictThe court observed: “The act and conduct of the opposite parties firstly inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest her hard-earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency in service. Rather, it appears that the opposite parties had dishonest intentions to cheat since the inception of the dealing between the parties.”