IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Detailed evidence – There is no force in contending that, that all the Complaints herein require detailed evidence and deep scrutiny which is not possible at all in summary inquiry contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2) State Commission – State Consumer Commission cannot go into the merits of all the transactions mentioned by the complainants.

ORDER

A.Z. Khwaja, Presiding Member—All complainants herein have filed the present fifteen complaints against the same opponent - Mahesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. claiming similar and identical relief and so all the Complaints are being decided by this common order.

2. Complainants have preferred the present Consumer Complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Mahesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.(Herein after referred as Society) is registered under the Provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Mr. Kalyan Rajderkar is the Manager of the opponent - Mahesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.. Complainants have contended that in the year 2016 the Society had introduced one scheme regarding deposits and returns at the rate of 15% per annum. Complainants were attracted by the scheme and so the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 20/09/2017 in the bank account by way of fixed deposit for the period of 13 months. Complainant also completed documentation formalities and amount was duly transferred to the Opponent-Society. The Opponent – Society also issued a receipt in the name of the complainant. The opponent-Society agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the fixed deposit for 13 months. The complainant has contended that opponent-Society deposited the amount of interest till the month of February -2018 by transferring the same in the saving account but thereafter stopped paying the interest and on the contrary made a reverse entry of the deposit. The complainants were shocked by not depositing monthly interest amount and so the complainants visited the office of the opponent-Society but the opponent and its officers expressed helplessness to pay due to poor financial condition and sought time of three months. The Opponents thereafter stopped the payment of agreed interest from the month of March-2018. On 23/05/2018 the complainant again visited the office of the opponent-Society and requested for premature withdrawal of fixed deposit amount but the Opponent-Society and its office bearer refused to pay the amount. The complainant then sent a written application on 23/05/2018 but still the opponent-Society did not pay the amount. On 05/06/2018 the Opponent-Society sent reply stating that they had transferred the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- of Complainant in the loan account of one borrower Mr. Mangesh Subhash Theng by showing a lien on the loan. The Opponent-Society also informed the complainant that there was no amount on fixed deposit in balance. The Opponent-Society also informed that since the complainant was a minor , the permission of Court was also necessary for releasing maturity amount. The complainant has contended that she has never executed any agreement and had not mortgaged fixed deposit amount with the opponent-Society and was not acquainted with Mangesh Theng. The complainant has specifically contended that opponent-Society had illegally manipulated the documents and had committed misappropriation in the Society with the amount of the complainant.

3. Complainants have also contended that they were a ‘Consumers’ and there was a relationship of the Consumer and Service Provider with the opponent – Society and by not paying the fixed deposit amount as per agreed terms, the opponent-Society had committed deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice. The complainants have therefore prayed that the opponent–Society be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- towards principal amount and Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of interest for the period from 01/04/2018 to 30/06/2018 and also to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment.

4. After filing of the complaints due notices were issued to the opponent-Society. The opponent–Society has appeared in all complaints and resisted the complaints by filing detailed written version on record. It is admitted that opponent-Society was duly registered under Maharashtra Co