Haryana

Panchkula

CC/123/2019

HARJIT SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER,SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

22 Mar 2021

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	123 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	26.02.2019
Date of Decision	:	22.03.2021

 

Harjit Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Sh. Saroop Singh, R/o H.No.30, Village Kanguwala, Kalka District Panchkula, Haryana.                                                                                                           …….Complainant

Versus

1.      Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative, Society limited, Ram Bagh Road, Kalka, Haryana.

2.      Subrata Roy S/o Sudhir Roy, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

3.      Rakesh Tiwari, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Ram Bagh Road, Kalka, Haryana.

….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

                           Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                           Dr.SushmaGarg, Member.

                          

For the Parties:    Complainant in person with Sh. Om Parkash, Advocate.

                           Sh. Amit Singla, Advocate, for the OPs.

Order

(SATPAL, president)

 1.              The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that the OP No.3 persuaded the complainants to invest the money with the OPs No.1 & 2, they invested a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month from 10.09.2013 to 10.09.2018(60 months) through OP No.3. It is alleged that till the date of maturity i.e. 10.09.2018 a total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was deposited by the complainant in account no. 24004800756, and as per the terms of this scheme complainant was entitled to Rs.4,66,200 as on 10.09.2018 and total admitted amount as on 29.12.2018 is Rs.4,70,000/-. From the date of maturity of the above said FDR, the complainant visited the branch office of the OP No.2 so many times and contacted the OP No.3 to release the maturity amount of Rs.4,66,200 /-of the complainant but he told that the above said FDR will not be encashed. The complainant was harassed by the Ops from the due date of the FDR. He requested many times to the OPs for refund of the due amount but no action has been taken by the OPs. He also served a legal notice upon OPs on 25.01.2019 but all in vain. Thus, there is a deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; no cause of action; the complainant has suppressed the material facts; the complainant  is not a consumer; no jurisdiction; no locus standi; estoppel, has not come with clean hands.  On merits, OPs  No.1 to 3 stated that being a member of the society vide membership no.24001300646, the complainant had opted Sahara M.Benefit Scheme and deposited Rs.6,000/- per month for 60 months at the Branch office, Kalka, Panchkula, on 10.09.2013. The total amount deposited by the complainant is Rs.3,60,000/- of which maturity had been completed on 10.09.2018. It is also submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs. It is further submitted that under the terms and condition of clause-5 of scheme the member is liable to surrender the original passbook together with application for demand of maturity amount. After receiving these documents the payment could be made after 30 to 35 days from the date of receiving the documents by the Society. But neither the complainant surrendered the original passbook nor submitted application for demand of maturity amount. It is further submitted that the complainant was demanding the enhanced rate of interest upon the maturity amount which is beyond the provisions of the scheme and the complainant refused to get the maturity amount. As per the conditions no additional interest is payable if the maturity is taken after scheduled period. The payment of maturity amount is subject to fulfillment of the required conditions but the complainant didn’t fulfill the said conditions or completed the said formalities for getting the payment. It is further stated that before opting the scheme Sahara M.Benefit, the complainant have duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with documents Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.               We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs and have gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the learned counsels for both the parties, minutely and carefully.

5.               Admittedly, the complainant being a member of the OP No.1 society vide membership no.24001300646 had opted Sahara M.Benefits scheme and deposited Rs.6,000/-per month w.e.f. 10.09.2013 for 60 months, totalling Rs.3,60,000/-, with OP No.1. The said scheme matured on 10.09.2018. The grievances of the complainant are that the Ops have not released the maturity amount despite the fact that he has visited the office of OPs several times, with the original documents, asking them to release the maturity amount. The reminder (Annexure C-1) as well as legal notice (Annexure C-2) requesting the OPs for the disbursement of the maturity amount have also failed to evoke any positive response.

6.               The complaint has been resisted by the OPs on the ground that by virtue of the terms and conditions as contained in the Clause 5, the complainant is liable to submit the original pass book alongwith an application for payment of maturity amount to him. It is stated that after the receipt of the said documents, the payment could be released after 30 to 35 days. It is further stated that the complainant neither submitted original pass book nor submitted any application for the release of maturity amount.

7.               The Ops, apart from contesting the complaint on its merits, have raised several preliminary objections. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OPs, as the complainant is a member of the society which is duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” (hereinafter referred to as society) which is duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002”. It is contended that  a consumer complaint is not maintainable in a dispute between a member and the society and in this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the case law titled as M/s Anjana Abraham Chembethil, Mutholapura PO Ernakulam Versus The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Limited reported in 2013(4) CPJ 333(NC). Further, in the light of provisions contained in the Section 69 of the Cooperative Society Act, 1969, it is claimed that the present complaint is not maintainable.

8.               The next objection of the OPs is that the complainant being a member of the society was bound to refer his dispute, if any, before the arbitrator as per Clause 10 of the Terms and Conditions of the scheme, which is re-produced as under:-

“10. Arbitration:-

In case of any dispute between Cooperative Society and Member account holder the same shall be decided by arbitration as per “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002”. Arbitration proceedings and proceedings arising out of the award shall be binding on both the parties”.

Reliance has been placed upon the case law titled as Andhra Bank and Ors. Srisailam Branch Srisailam A.P. and Zonal Manager, Andhara Bank, Zonal Office Karnool A.P.Versus Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram, Sasrisalilam and Anr. Annadana Satram, SSrisailam, By its Secretary, M.D.Y Rama Moorthy  and T.Rama Moorty reported in 2017(2) CPR 246 NC.

9.               The above objections are liable to be rejected in view of the well settled legal proposition in various cases, which may be mentioned as under:-

1. Secretary, Thirumurugum Co-op Agrl Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (2004 AIR SC, 448) 
2. Northern Zone Railway employees C-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd Vs. Charanjiv Lal (NCDRC) New Delhi, bearing Revision Petition No.2193/ 2017 decided on 10.10.2017
3. Emmar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh Review Petition (c) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017 decided on 10.12.2018(SC)
4. Kalwati & Ors. Versus United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. NCDRC, New Delhi bearing revision petition no.823 to 826 of 2001 decided on 26.09.2001
5. Raj Kumar Goyal Vs. Malwinder Battu 2017(1) CLT 73, (NCDRC) New Delhi decided on 23.12.2016 
6. Telegraph Traffic  employees Vs. B.F. Basthwala (NCDRC)New Delhi 2012(1) CPJ 200 decided on 09.11.2011).

10.            Now coming to the merits of the case, as discussed above, there is no dispute with regard to the maturity amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. Further, as per accounts statement appended with pass book(Annexure C-3) and accounts statement (Annexure C-4) an amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- is payable by the Ops to the complainant on 29.12.2018. The Ops have no justification, much less any valid and legal, to withhold the maturity amount. Even the request made by the complainant vide his application dated 01.01.2019(Annexure C-1) and legal notice dated 25.01.2019(Annexure C-2) also failed to move the OPs. The contentions of the Ops that the complainant did not surrender the original pass book alongwith an application demanding for maturity amount is rejected being baseless and meritless. It is a matter of common knowledge that no litigant/consumer approaches the court/Tribunal out of his choice but is compelled to invoke jurisdiction of the court/tribunal only when he gets no response pertaining to his complaint from the service providers/OPs. In the present case, we find no communication from the side of the OPs requiring the complainant to deposit and fulfilling the legal formalities alongwith the documents.  Further, we find no force and substance in the plea of the OPs that complainant was insisting upon the payment of the interest on the maturity amount as OPs have not adduced any evidence, much less adequate and credible, to substantiate its version. We are of the considered view that the Ops have utterly failed to perform its part of obligation.  It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs even after the filing of this complaint and during the pendency of this complaint have never shown any interest to release the maturity amount to the complainants. There was no bar or hindrance in the way of the OPs to release the maturity amount to the complainants after getting the formalities completed even during the pendency of the complaint but the OPs instead of refunding the maturity amount preferred to contest the present complaint on various flimsy and frivolous grounds.

11.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 while delivering services to the complainants; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

12.             Regarding relief, it is found that an amount of Rs.4,70,000/-  was due towards the complainant on 29.12.2018. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the Ops are directed to make the payment of Rs.4,70,000/-alongwith interest @9% w.e.f. 30.12.2018 till its realization.

13.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The Ops are directed to make the payment of Rs. 4,70,000/- alongwith interest @9% w.e.f. 30.12.2018 till its realization to the complainant.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation charges.
4. The complainant shall submit the original passbook alongwith an application and fulfill the other legal formalities. In this regard the OPs shall ask the complainant in writing to deposit the original passbook alongwith application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter the complainant shall complete the formalities within another one month. After the submission of original passbook and completion of other legal formalities by the complainant, the OPs shall release the amount alongwith interest as directed above.

 

14.             The Ops No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the Ops No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 Announced on: 22.03.2021

 

 

           (Dr.Sushma Garg)       (Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini)       (Satpal)

                  Member                        Member                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                                    Satpal                                                                                                 President