Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/276/2019

Lalita Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Akashdeep Sethi Adv.

19 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	276/2019
Date of Institution	:	03.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	19.04.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Lalita Kumari aged 52 years w/o Harman Singh Lalee r/o 259/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Branch Head, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
2.  

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                Sh.Akashdeep Sethi, Advocate for the complainant

                Sh.Nitin Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Brief facts of the case are as alleged by the complainant are that  the agent of the OP-Company namely Lavkush Kumar Gupta having introducer Code 823972000038 approached her for converting the invested amount of Rs.41,200/- in FDR after its maturity and being a less literate lady, she agreed for the same and accordingly he issued receipt dated 07.09.2012 for Rs.41,200/-. As per the said receipt, the amount was invested in ‘Advance” for Q Shop Goods (Exist) (Plan-H). After getting the amount invested, she came to know that in fact the same was invested in stock market and as such she approached him for refund of the amount but he told that since the amount was invested so it was to be withdrawn after the lock-in-period of 5 years.  After five years, she approached the agent of the OPs for withdrawal of the invested amount but she was informed that the Company was in bad financial health , so he advised her that the amount be invested for another 2 years and in the meantime, the Company would come out of their financial bad health and will refund the amount after the extended period of 2 years but she did not agreed to and requested for refund of the same.  According to the complainant, when the OPs did not pay any heed to her requests then she got served a legal notice dated 22.10.2018 upon the OPs requiring them to refund the invested amount but to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
2.         Upon notice, the OPs put in appearance through their Counsel Sh.Nitin Sharma, Advocate.  The OPs have contested the consumer complaint inter alia raising the preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly misconceived and vexatious; that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider inter se the complainant and the OPs. It has further been pleaded that the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is of Member and Society and therefore, for any dispute between the society and the Member, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.  It has further been pleaded that  before making advance, the complainant has gone through the terms and conditions of the Scheme Q Shop Plan-H and after understanding the same she had made advance shared of Rs.41,200/- vide receipt No.071019984136 and he has agreed to purchase the complete range of the goods of the company chosen from brochures, which includes complete range of food products, general merchandise, gold/gold jewellery, diamond/diamond jewelry, handicraft products and multi brand goods etc.  It has further been pleaded that the tenure/term of Q Shop Plan-H was 6 years which commenced from the date of payment of advance amount and the customer is entitled to get the benefits of loyalty bonus points as per the terms and conditions of the scheme on purchase of the products.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant was only entitled to purchase the products of the company and she could get relief against unadjusted/unitized advance amount after the expiry of 6 years. It has further been pleaded that there is no provision of pre-maturity or maturity payment under the scheme and as per clause 2 of the scheme, no interest is payable over the advance amount.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder by way of additional  affidavit to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties   and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
5.         The Counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the complaint is not maintainable under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the relation between the complainant and the OPs is of member and the Society. However, we do not find any substance in this submission of the Counsel for the OPs because the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force as provided under Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as such this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Here our view is also bolstered from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs and others", 2004(1) CLT 456 in which it was held as under:-

“11.          From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever 'appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalities for non- compliance of their orders.

12.           As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar."

6.         The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the judgment reported as AJMER URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Versus MANISH WILLIAMS, T.D. WILLIAMS, VINISH WILLIAMS, MAYA MARIE ROSE, VIRAM SINGH BHATI, SHANKAR LAL GARG,  I (2018) CPJ 202 (NC) has held as under:-

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 3, 21(b) — Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 16 — Consumer — Co-operative Society — Resignation from membership — Refusal of Bank to return share money amounts — Deficiency in service — District Forum allowed complaints — State Commission dismissed appeals — Hence revision — Remedy under consumer law was in addition to remedy provided in law, relating to administration of Co-operative Societies — Member of Society can raise consumer dispute against society — Complainant consumer.

 

7.         The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the judgment reported as "Smt. Kalawati and others versus M/s United Vaish Co-operative Thirft and Credit Society Ltd.", 2002(1) CLT 101 has also held as under:-

"Section 3 - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Sections 60 and 93 - Bar of jurisdiction - Deposits - Non payment of by respondent society on maturity to the petitioners who were members of the society - Complaint filed before District Forum against respondent society - Plea of the respondent society that in view of Section 93 of the Societies Act consumer Forum would have no jurisdiction in respect of the dispute - Held that a District Forum is not a Civil Court though it may have the trappings of a Civil Court - Neither it is a revenue court - Do not think that Section 93 of the Societies Act would come in the way of the District Forum in assuming the Jurisdiction.

 

(ii)            Section 2(1)(d) - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Sections 60 and 93 - Consumer Deposits - Non payment of by respondent society on maturity to the petitioners who were members of the society - Complaint filed before District Forum against respondent society - Findings by the State Commission that a member cannot be a consumer vis-à-vis the society of which he is a member set aside - Held that complainants were certainly consumers and could maintain their complaints in the District Forum."

8.         The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand and as such it is held that the complaint is maintainable against the OPs under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9.         From the receipt dated 31.03.2012 (Annexure C-1) it is evident that the OPs have a received a sum of Rs.600/- from the complainant towards the membership No.23971106176. A bare perusal of the receipt/certificate dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure C-1) shows that the OPs had received another sum of Rs.41,200/- towards advance for Q Shop G Good (Exist) Plan H from the complainant, but there is no mention of investment for five years. However, in the written statement, the Opposite Parties have admitted that the Scheme in question relates to purchase of products through which customer (Complainant) can purchase the products of company every month for a period of 6 years as per her requirement through that advance money which she paid to the Opposite Parties at the time of entering into the Scheme. Also, there is mention that there is no provision of payment of maturity payment. As per Opposite Parties, Clause-2 of Scheme specifically states that no interest is payable over the advance amount. It is not understood that why the Opposite Parties never made any correspondence with the Complainant if as per the Scheme she had to purchase the products of the company every month for a period of 6 years.  This itself is sufficient to prove the inactive approach of the Opposite Parties towards their gullible consumers/ customers. So far as the question of maturity payment is there, there is no mention with regard to the same in Annexure C-1.  However, during the course of the arguments, the Counsel for the OPs has very fairly submitted that the OPs are ready to refund the amount with 6% interest p.a. to the complainant.  The OPs have failed to refund the deposited amount to the complainant despite her repeated requests and even service of the legal notice and fully knowing the fact that she did not avail any kind of facilities of the OPs under the said scheme, which itself amounts to deficiency in service, as also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
10.         In our considered view, the OPs must have enjoyed the fruits of the amount deposited by the complainant, for the period the same remained with it. We see no reason why the interest earned by the OPs on the said amount be not passed over to the complainant. Why should it become additional profit for the OPs? In these set of circumstances, we feel that the interest @9% p.a., for the period the amount of Rs.41,200/- remained with the OPs, should be paid to the Complainant.
11.         In the result, the complaint is allowed qua the OPs. The OPs are directed to :-
    1. refund the amount of Rs.41,200/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of its deposit till its payment. 
    2. to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.

12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.04.2021

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER