DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/22/2022

Date of Institution   : 18.01.2022

Date of Decision    : 31.10.2022

Surjeet Kaur, aged about 75 years, wife of Sh. Jangir Singh resident of Fatehgarh Basti, Raikot Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala-148101.

                …Complainant

     Versus

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Registered Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director;

2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Branch Office Barnala, now shifted at Sahara India Parivar, Sethi Complex, 3rd Floor, Near Modi College Chowk, Opposite Apollo Ground, Patiala-147001, through its Branch Manager. 

           …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Surjeet Kaur has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (amended upto date) against Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has availed the services of opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant has invested a total sum of Rs. 37,000/- in cash with the opposite party No. 2 at Barnala through 2 FDR for 18 months on 7.8.2018 and it was agreed with the opposite parties and the complainant that the opposite parties will handover a sum of Rs. 43,031/- to the complainant on 7.2.2020 and the opposite parties have issued one FDR in this regard. It is further alleged that the complainant according to the agreement and terms & conditions tried to submit the above said original FDR in the office of opposite party No. 2 for the release of value for the sum of Rs. 43,031/- on 7.2.2020. But the opposite party No. 2 refused to receive the same and has verbally told to the complainant that she will receive the same after some days when the payment will be made to the complainant. After some days the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 for collecting the amount and depositing the above said seven membership documents. It is further alleged that the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the payment will be made on the next month. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No. 2 but they linger on the matter on the one pretext or the other. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To make the payment of Rs. 43,031/- as per the agreement alongwith interest.

ii) To pay Rs. 15,000/-  on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- 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. 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. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and invested an amount of Rs. 37,000/- under the scheme of the company 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. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the answering opposite parties was rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such, the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment, but she willfully refused to receive the same in part. So, due to this reason the above said payment could not have been made. 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, copy of certificate Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for complainant has suffered the statement on 23.5.2022 that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite parties.

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 22.8.2022.

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

7. In order to prove her case the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. She has further placed on record copy of FDR/certificate Ex.C-2, which shows that a total amount of Rs. 37,000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. 

8. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 22.8.2022.

9. Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the total amount of Rs. 37,000/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed as per Ex.C-2. Moreover, from the perusal of the records it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the total amount of Rs. 37,000/- with the opposite parties as per scheme. Further, in Ex.C-2 it shows that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs. 37,000/- with the opposite parties vide certificate Ex.C-2 in the said scheme and in this regard 1 certificate has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Further, in Ex.C-2 the maturity amount of deposits on certificate is also shown alongwith maturity date. So, we are of the view that the complainant has successful in proving that she has deposited the total amount of Rs. 37,000/- with the opposite parties in the shape of fixed deposit and the opposite parties are bound to pay the total amount of Rs. 43,031/- as per their certificate Ex.C-2. 

10. However, the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection in their written version that opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In fact, this dispute is with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the opposite parties for a particular period and the refund of the same along with benefits. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No. 127 of 2021 & others in case titled Savitri Devi Vs M/s Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, decided on 21.6.2021 has held that Consumer Fora (now Consumer Commission) has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, where the consumer comes to the Consumer Fora/Commission claiming the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the present case also, consumer-complainant is complaining that the opposite parties have not complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme by not refunding the amount deposited by her along with due benefits. There is no dispute between opposite parties and the complainant regarding management and governance of the Society. Even otherwise, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection, 1986, now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the remedy available before the Consumer Fora/Commission is an additional remedy. Accordingly the complainant, being member of the opposite parties-Society, falls under the definition of ‘consumer’. 

So, it is proved that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and the Consumer for a (now Commission) has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the dispute between the Member of Society and its Manager not excluded from the Consumer Jurisdiction.

11.   Moreover, it is also mentioned in the written version that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the opposite parties were unable to make the payment to complainant and even the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment. Meaning thereby the opposite parties are ready to refund the amount of complainant in installments. 

12. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 43,031/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs and Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       31st Day of October, 2022 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member