STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/18/26 Shruti Sudhir Kirtane, Aged 60 years, Senior Citizen, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Flat No.304/B, Sector No.20, Plot No.27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai – 410 209. ….... Complainants Versus HP Employee’s Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., registered Under Multi-State Co-op.

Societies Act, 2002 having its Registered office at H.P.C.L./West Zone, Training Center, 3rd Floor, ¾, Junction Of Turner Road, S.V. Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400050. ....... Opposite Party BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant : Advocate Poonam Makhijani For Opposite Party : Advocate Darshita Hatage, SC Legal.

JUDGMENT

(Date 27-01-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 2(1)(g) and allied provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, namely HP Employee’s Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., a multi-state co- operative credit society registered under the Multi-State Co-

operative Societies Act, 2002.

2. The complainant has stated that she is a senior citizen and a former employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and retired from service on 30.11.2017 after about 36 years and 3 months of service. She has further stated that being a member of the Opposite Party society, she decided in December 2015 to invest her savings under the Monthly Income Scheme floated by the Opposite Party on the assurance of attractive returns, and accordingly submitted the prescribed form along with a cheque of Rs.9,00,000/-.

3. The complainant has further stated that the Opposite Party issued Fixed Deposit Receipt No.002/3491 dated 04.01.2016 for Rs.9,00,000/- showing the maturity date as 04.01.2019. It is her case that neither the prescribed form nor the said receipt mentioned any bar on premature withdrawal. She has further stated that due to financial needs she requested by email in February 2017 for release of the deposit and transfer to her bank account, but the Opposite Party refused by relying on its internal circular dated 24.12.2015 stating that premature withdrawal under the scheme is not permissible.

4. The complainant has alleged that she came to know of such circular only upon refusal and that the Opposite Party acted unfairly and arbitrarily by enforcing an undisclosed prohibition. She has pleaded that the stand taken by the Opposite Party is contrary to the regulatory framework and inconsistent with the RBI policy/circular dated 01.07.2014 regarding premature withdrawal. She has therefore alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

5. The complainant has further stated that thereafter she approached the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and also made a complaint to the Reserve Bank of India on 01.08.2017, contending that refusal of premature withdrawal is contrary to the RBI circular dated 01.07.2014. According to her, she did not get relief and the Opposite Party continued to retain her money.

6. The complainant has further stated that after her retirement on 30.11.2017, the Opposite Party also did not release the amount of Rs.3,52,242/- standing to her credit and insisted upon further formalities and documentation. She has stated that withholding of the deposit and allied dues on the basis of unilateral and undisclosed conditions is unfair and arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. On these pleadings, she has sought directions for refund of the amounts with interest, along with compensation and litigation costs.

7. Upon admission of the consumer complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was duly served and it appeared through its authorised representative/advocate.

8. The Opposi