Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/481

Tajinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

28 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 481 dated 18.10.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 28.11.2023. 

 

Tajinder Kaur W/o. Hardeep Singh, Resident of House No.90, Near Dream City, Gil Sweet Shop Wali Gali, Amaltas Enclave, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      …..Complainant

                                                Versus

The Manager, M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sector Office at Sahil Plaza, 4^th Floor, Model Town Extension, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                 …..Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Harpreet Singh Arora, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of May 2011, the complainant got prepared two FDRs  vide FDR No.351000215476 dated 06.05.2011 for Rs.10,000/-  and FDR No.351000215477 dated 06.05.2011 for Rs.5000/- with the opposite party vide membership No.24291102094 vide two accounts No.24293700722 and No.24293700723. The maturity amount of FDR of Rs.10,000/- is Rs.22,640/- and Rs.5000/- is Rs.11,320/-. After elapse of period of 8 years, the complainant approached the opposite party to release the agreed total maturity amount of Rs.33,960/- along with interest but initially they kept the matter pending on one pretext and another. Even after two years of the maturity, the OP has not paid a single penny and has been dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. The agreed amount along with interest was not disbursed despite complainant’s repeated requests and visits to the office of the opposite party. The complainant served a legal notice dated 08.09.2021 to the OP but to no effect. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and further prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.33,960/- along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                 Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed a written statement. The opposite party took a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party is a society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” (hereinafter called as Act) and the complainant being a member of the society cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party also further took the objection that there exists an Arbitration clause as contemplated in the Section 84 of the said Act, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Arbitrator. On merits, the opposite party could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of her Aadhar card, Ex. C2 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.09.2021, Ex. C3 is the postal receipt, Ex. C4 is the copy certificate No. 351000215476, Ex. C5 is the copy of certificate No. 351000215477  and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Sheela Kumari, Manager of opposite party and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and also perused and examined the record and following points of determination arises there from:-

(i) Whether the complainant being the member of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited was required to avail the remedy provided under this Act instead of filing the present complaint?

(ii) Whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so, its effect?

6.                The counsel for the opposite party had vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by availing remedy under the Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court including that of this Commission. In support of the arguments, he relied upon the following citations:-

a.       M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs The Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013

b.       2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another

c.       1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase

d.       Smt. Paramita Deb Vs The Sector Head in Case No.A.2.2021 decided on 10.05.2021 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contends that the Existence of Alternative relief does not bar the complainant to avail remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                We have considered the contentions of the counsel for both the parties and are of the opinion that there is a force in the contentions of the counsel for the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act being a Special Enactment created an Additional Remedy in favour of the consumers to raise consumer disputes before the Consumer Commissions constituted under this Act. Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of this act shall be in Addition to and not in  Derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In this regard, a reference can be made the 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 Co-operative 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 regard, a reference can also be made to the law laid down in decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held that the remedy available under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for redressal of disputes are in Addition to the Remedy available under the Co-operative Societies Act and Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act cannot stand in the way of filing a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Co-operative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                It was the bounden duty of the opposite party to honour the contractual obligation within the stipulated time. Even the opposite party has not specifically denied the investment made by the complainant with them nor they lead any evidence in this regard. The act and conduct of the opposite party firstly inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest her hard earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency in service. Rather it appears that the opposite party had dishonest intentions to cheat since the inception of the dealing between the parties. 

10.              Moreover, it has not been disputed that the complainant invested amount of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party as per certificate Ex. C4 and invested Rs.5000/- with the opposite party as per certificate Ex. C5. These facts have not been specifically denied by the opposite party in the written statement. It is settled that if the fact is not specifically denied in the written statement it deemed to be admitted by the opposite party. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. C3 that the complainant invested Rs.10,000/- on 06.05.2011 which was to be matured on 06.05.2019 with maturity amount of Rs.22,640/- and it is also evidence from Ex. C5 that the complainant invested Rs.5000/-on 06.05.2011 which was to be matured on 06.05.2019 with maturity amount of Rs.11,320/-. It is also not disputed that the deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- as well as Rs.5000/- has not been refunded to the complainant by the opposite party. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite party are made to pay the maturity amount of Rs.22,640/- and Rs.11,320/- of the certificates Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 respectively along with interest @8% per annum  from their respective maturity date i.e. 06.05.2019 till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.22,640/- and Rs.11,320/- of the certificates Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 respectively along with interest @8% per annum  from their respective maturity date i.e. 06.05.2019 till date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                 (Sanjeev Batra)                                    Member                                              President 

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.11.2023.

Gobind Ram.