DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 89/2019

Date of Institution   : 12.07.2019

Date of Decision    : 10.12.2019

 

Rita Rani wife of Raj Kumar resident of Near Railway Station, Anandpur Basti, Gurudware Wali Gali, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala.     

                   …Complainant Versus

 

1. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop North, 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 India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop North, Regd. Office-Sahara India Complex, C-2, C-3, C-4, Sector-11, Noida-201301 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.

 

                 …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..

 

 

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Rita Rani has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against M/s Sahara India Parivar 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 and the opposite party No. 1 is branch office of opposite parties. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant to invest in the contributed scheme of the opposite parties. On the advise of opposite party No. 1, the  complainant invested a sum of Rs. 11,000/- in the above said scheme for a period of 6 years in fixed deposit scheme under Sahara Q Shop scheme but the complainant can get the money refunded before maturity period at any time. It is further alleged that the complainant was in need of money, as such she 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. 11000/- 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 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 opposite parties 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/contributed Rs. 11,000/- in furtherance of the objects of Society on 6.1.2014 under Q Shop Scheme at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted submitted that under Contribution Scheme there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment and the scheme dose not provide interest over the contributed amount and Lock-in-period of contribution amount is 6 years. 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. In support of her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of new scheme chart Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

5. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite parties have failed to adduce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Forum dated 22.10.2019.

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

7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that on the advise of opposite party No. 1 the  complainant invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000/- for a period of 6 years Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 in the above said scheme of opposite parties. Further, the complainant was in need of money, so she asked for the refund of money and deposited/submitted the above said certificates with the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have failed to pay back the money to complainant.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite parties 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 herself 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 deposited/contributed Rs. 11,000/- in furtherance of the objects of Society on 6.1.2014. 

9. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties 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”

10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant in order to rebut the case of the opposite parties has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 2004(1) CPJ (SC) in case titled Secretary Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs M. Lalitha (Dead) Through L.Rs & Ors., and also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi 2006(2) CPJ 197 in case titled Bihar State Housing Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Vs Sushila Devi.

We have gone through the above mentioned judgments and are of the view that these judgments are not applicable in the present matter, as in these judgments the matter pertains to loan dispute between the member and the society and the society issued notices to the respondents/members demanding payment of loan amount with interest thereon. So, here it is a consumer & service provider relationship. But in the present case the dispute is that a member who has contributed the amount with the society to become a member of society & gain benefits of the society has demanded back the amount with interest. In this case it is not a consumer relation between the complainant and the society. However, in view of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled ANJANA ABRAHAM versus KOOTHATTUKULAM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD in 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 and the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to try the disputes arising between Co-operative Societies and its Members. 

Further, the Ld. Counsel for complainant has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which are as under:-

(i)In 2016(4) CLT 225 Yash Developments Vs Gaurav Dhroov Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

(ii)In 2019(1) CLT 358 DM, Maharashtra State Seeds Corp. Ltd. And others Vs Abhimanu Bhaurao Mane and others.

(iii)In 2019(2) CLT 612 Gaodevi Utkarsh Sra Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., and others Vs Sudesh Darshan Aggarwal and others.

11. We have also gone through the above said judgments/citations relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and are of the view that the same are not applicable in the present case, as the matter of the above said judgments/citations are altogether different from the present matter. 

12. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant has become the member of above said society and invested the amount to get the benefit from the society. Even, the complainant has failed to brought on record any cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence in support of her allegations.  

13. 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:

       10th Day of December, 2019 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member