DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 80/2019

Date of Institution   : 01.07.2019

Date of Decision    : 18.11.2019

 

Jaswant Rai son of Sh. Sham Lal resident of H.No. B-XI-726, Gali No. 6, K.C. Road, Barnala, District Barnala.     

                   …Complainant Versus

 

1. M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Sahara India Parivar, Branch Office, College Road, Under Bridge, Near S.D. College, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

2. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corporation, Lower Mall, Near Modi College, Patiala through its Sector Manager cum Branch Manager.

3. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Regional Office, SCO-1110-1111, Sector-22B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. 

4. M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Sahara India Parivar, Regd. Office -Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lukhnow-226024, Uttar Pradesh through its Managing Director.

5. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Command Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lukhnow-226024, Uttar Pradesh, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director Survot Rai Sahara. 

6. Santosh Jindal wife of Yograj resident of St. No. 11, Backside Saravhitkari School, Grain Market Road, Barnala.

                 …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 5.

Sh. Sumant Goyal counsel for opposite party No. 6.

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3.Smt. Manisha : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Jaswant Rai has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against M/s Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties are a registered limited company under Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 & the opposite party No. 1 is branch office and opposite party No. 6 is the authorized agent of opposite parties. It is further alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 6 advised the complainant to invest in the contributed scheme of the opposite parties. On the advise of opposite parties No. 1 & 6, the  complainant invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- in the above said scheme for a period of 60 months in equal installments and the collection of each installment was done by the opposite party No. 6 at Barnala and an account number 73403700374 on 23.11.2011 was allotted to the complainant by the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 6 collected the installments No. 59 & 60 from the complainant, but the entry was not done in passbook by the opposite parties. It is further alleged that after the expiry of 60 months the complainant handed over original passbook to the opposite parties and asked for the refund of money. But the opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to pay back the money to complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) To pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited and there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between Co-operative Societies and its members under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and shared Rs. 17,400/- in 58 monthly installments each of Rs. 300/- w.e.f. 23.11.2011 vide membership No. 73401100558 under Sahara M Benefit scheme at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The opposite party No. 6 filed separate written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, complaint is purely of civil nature, complaint is time barred and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands etc. On merits, the opposite party No. 6 denied the case of the complainant. It is submitted that after collecting the installments from the complainant, the opposite party No. 6 got deposited the same with the office of opposite party No. 1. It is further denied that the entry No. 59 & 60 were collected from the complainant. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of passbook Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. 

6. In order to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 6 tendered into evidence copies of receipts Ex.O.P6/1 & Ex.O.P6/2 and closed the evidence. 

7. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 have failed to adduce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties No. 1 to 5 is closed by the order of this Forum dated 22.10.2019.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that on the advise of opposite parties No. 1 & 6 the  complainant invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- for 60 months in equal installments at Barnala vide Ex.C-2 in the above said scheme of opposite parties through opposite parties No. 1 & 6 because they assured that the money is safe and the complainant can get his money back at any time even before maturity date and the opposite party No. 1 will arrange the money for the complainant at any time. He further argued that the opposite parties issued an account number 73403700374 on 23.11.2011 to the complainant and a passbook was also issued in this regard. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 6 collected the installments No. 59 & 60 from the complainant but the entry was not done in the passbook by the opposite parties. Further, after the expiry of 60 months the complainant handed over original passbook to the opposite parties and asked for the refund of money. But the opposite parties have failed to pay back the money to complainant.

10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 has vehemently argued that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited as there is no relation of 'consumer' and 'service provider' between the complainant and opposite parties and the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. He further argued that for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between Co-operative Societies and its members under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant himself contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for getting benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and shared Rs. 17,400/- in 58 monthly installments each of Rs. 300/- w.e.f. 23.11.2011 vide membership No. 73401100558 under Sahara M Benefit scheme at Barnala office of the Society. 

11. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 6 has argued that after collecting the installments from the complainant, the opposite party No. 6 got deposited the same with the office of opposite party No. 1. He further argued that it is incorrect that the entry No. 59 & 60 were collected from the complainant by the opposite party No. 6. He also argued that the complainant concocted a false and frivolous story to implicate the opposite party No. 6 in the present case. 

12. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 5 has relied upon a citation of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi IV (2013) CPJ 333 (NC) in case titled ANJANA ABRAHAM versus KOOTHATTUKULAM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(e), 21(b). Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 Section 69 - Consumer Dispute – Conflict of Member with Co-operative Society- Jurisdiction- Dispute of this nature is not consumer dispute under Act, 1986 and right Forum was to have ones remedy under Co-operative Societies Act. 

In Para No. 3 of the above said citation it is mentioned;

“As a matter of fact, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to try the disputes arising between Co-operative Societies and its Members. Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, runs as follows:-

Chapter IX Settlement of Disputes

69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the first time being in force, if a dispute arises :-

a) among members; past member or person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or

b) between a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of that society; or

c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or

d) between the society and any other society; or

e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it; or 

f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person; or 

g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or 

h) between the society and a creditor of the society; 

“such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Sec.70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other authority, shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.

In Para No. 4 of the above said citation it is mentioned;

“Similar view was taken in the case reported as P.P. Kapoor Vs. Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., I (1999) CPJ 81, wherein it was held in Para 7 of its judgment, as under:-

“In our view, the dispute sought to be raised was a dispute arising out of the alleged non-compliance of provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, under Section 60 of the said Act. Section 93(1)(c) of the said Act vests jurisdiction in respect of the disputes required to be referred to the Registrar under Section 60. Sub- rule 3 ousts jurisdiction of any Court, on any ground, whatsoever to question any order/decision or award made under the Act. In Dilip Bapat & Anr., Vs. Panchyati Co- operative Housing Society Limited, I (1993) CPJ 68 (NC), it was observed in Para-11 of the report that dispute of this nature is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act and the right Forum was to have ones remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act”

13. We are of the view that the complainant has become the member of above said society and invested the amount to get the benefit of the scheme. Even, the complainant has failed to brought on record any cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence in support of his allegations.  

14. In view of the above discussion and in view of the above said citation of the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission, we are of the considered opinion that there is no 'consumer dispute' between the complainant and opposite parties and the present complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek her/his grievance before the appropriate Forum, except the Consumer Fora, as per law. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

       18th Day of November, 2019 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member