Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/165

Rajender Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay chawla Adv

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 165 dated 24.03.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 13.09.2022. 

 

Rajender Yadav son of Baleswar Yadav, resident of Punjab Warsted Spinning Mills, Mangarh, Kohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its registered office at Mangal Jyoti-101, 227/2, AJC Boss Road, Kolkata (West Bengal)-700020 through its Chairman/President/Authorized Representative.
2. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its authorized centre at Sahara India Pariwar F.C. Office, 4372, Ground Floor, Swarn Complex, Gaispur Road, Lohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ajay Chawla Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the month of July 2018, the complainant invested Rs.6,000/-, Rs.47,400/-, Rs.26,400/-, Rs.33,700/-, Rs.18,500/- and Rs.15,000/- with the OPs who issued certificates bearing No.438001308729, No.438001308730, No.438001308731, No.438001308732, No.438001308733 and No.438001308760.  The said deposits had date of maturity as 14.07.2020. After the date of maturity, when the complainant approached the OPs for receiving the amount of the deposit, he was told that the company was in a financial crisis and was not in a position to make the payment to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.47,400/-, Rs.26,400/-, Rs.33,700/-, Rs.18,500/- and Rs.15,000/- along with interest and the OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant is a consumer. According to the OPs, the relation between the complainant and the OPs is that of member and society. According to the OPs, in case of dispute between the member and the society, as per the provisions of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant formally did not tender any evidence. However, an affidavit of the complainant Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13 are there on the file.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs also did not formally tender any evidence. However, an affidavit of Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the OPs is on the file.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.                Though the complainant in para no.3 of the complaint claims to have deposited amount of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.47,400/-, Rs.26,400/-, Rs.33,700/-, Rs.18,500/- and Rs.15,000/- in different plans of the OPs. However, from the documents produced on record by the complainant which are Ex. C2, Ex. C4, Ex. C6, Ex. C8, Ex. C10 and Ex. C12 respectively, the complainant deposited Rs.3,000/-, Rs.19,700/-, Rs.11,000/-, Rs.14,000/-, Rs.8600/- and Rs.6800/- respectively. As per these certificates, the total maturity amount of the deposit comes to Rs.79,153/- which was payable by the OPs to the complainant as on 14.07.2020. The total maturity amount of Rs.79,153/- was not paid by the OPs which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.79,153/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 14.07.2020 till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 

7.                The counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as the complainant is only a member of the OP Society and being a member, he is required to get his grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. 

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for OP1 and OP2 but have found the same to be not tenable. In this regard, a reference can be made to law laid down in Mandatai Sambha Ji Pawar and another Vs State of Maharashtra passed in Writ Petition No.117 of 2011 decided on 03.05.2011 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court whereby it has been held that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and other authorities under Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In this case, there is also a reference to the law laid down the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held likewise. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.79,153/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum  from 14.07.2020 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Rajender Yadav  Vs Sahara Credit                                  CC/21/165

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.79,153/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum  from 14.07.2020 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.