JUDGMENT  AND  ORDER

 Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 21/08/2012   complainant namely Rajdeep  Roy  deposited an amount  of Rs.60,000/- ( Rupees sixty thousand ) only  under the plan  Sahara  Q  Shop Unique Products Range limited in Account No.-071012224626 with a condition  for payment of maturity amount  @135%  return after  6 years  i.e., Rs.1,41,000/-(approx) alongwithbonus, interest etc.  Thatupon maturity the complainant  submitted demand in the office of O.P.  No.-3 with a request to pay the matured amount but the O.Ps. failed to pay the matured amount on the stipulated date. Thus the O.Ps. caused disservice  to the  complainant. Thereafter the O.P.  No.-4  verbally informed  the complainant that the matured amount had been reinvested for another five years  but no paper or any document has  been supplied.  It is stated that the O.Ps. are bound to  pay the maturity  amount of Rs.1,41,000/- only alongwith interest  since the date of maturity.  Under the circumstances  the complainant has, therefore, prayed for passing an award for  payment  of maturity   benefits alongwith interest  over the total maturity amount  till date,  an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards  compensation for disservice  and for cost of the proceeding etc.

  The Opposite  PartyNos. 1,2&3jointly  filed written statement  stating, interalia, that there is no cause of action of this case, that the complaint is not  maintainable  etc.   It has been stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the  O.P.   There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the  O.P.  as the O.P.  Sahara  IndiaCredit Co-operative Society Ltd. is a duly registered society and the complainant is a member of the society.  Therefore for any dispute between the  Society and its  Members the consumer complaint is not maintainable rather  in case of dispute between the Co-operative Society and Member  Account holder, the same shall be decided by an Arbitrator as  per Multi-State Co-operative Society Act, 2002. The answering O.Ps. have denied  all the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint petition.  Under the circumstances,  the O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the  case.  The O.P.  No.-4  did not contest the case.

                                                 In support of the case   the complainant has submitted  his evidence on affidavit  as PW-1 and has also exhibited  some documents.  On  the other hand,  evidence on affidavit  of   Sri  Sanjay  Srivastava ,S. C. Head  of the O.P.  Company    has  been submitted from the side of  the contesting Opposite Parties  as DW-1.   Both  sides also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of  the  respective parties.  Perused the entire evidence on record.  Let us  now appreciate the evidence below.

In his evidence  as  PW-1 , the complainant, has reiterated the same facts as has been  narrated in the complaint petition.  PW-1 has  averred that  on  21/08/2012  he  deposited  an amount  of Rs.60,000/- ( Rupees sixty thousand ) only  under the plan  Sahara  Q  Shop Unique Products Range limited in Account No.-071012224626  with a condition  for payment of maturity amount  @135%  return after  6 years  i.e., Rs.1,41,000/-(approx) alongwith bonus, interest etc.  That  upon maturity  he  submitted demand in the office of O.P.  No.-3 with a request to pay the matured amount but the O.Ps. failed to pay the matured amount on the stipulated date  and thus the O.Ps. caused disservice  to  him.   PW-1   has further averred  that the O.P.  No.-4  verbally informed  him  that the matured amount had been reinvested for another five years  but no paper or any document has  been supplied. According to PW-1, the O.Ps. are bound to  pay the maturity  amount of Rs.1,41,000/- only alongwith interest  since the date of maturity.  PW-1  has exhibited  the  Sahara  Q  Shop  Unique Products A/C No.-071012224626 dated 21/08/2012 as  Ext.-1,  Sahara Q Shop Plan as Ext.-2,  letter dated 05/09/2018 as Ext.-3 and acknowledgement of demand as Ext.-4.   On the  other hand, in his evidence  DW-1 , however,   has not disputed the claim of PW-1 regarding  deposit  of money  under the scheme  SAHARA  Q  SHOP   and the fact  that  the said deposit has already been  matured.  DW-1 also has not stated anything  disputing the  matured value as claimed by  PW-1 .  However, according to DW-1,  there has been no negligence and disservice on the part of the O.P. Society.  It has been claimed by  DW-1 that  the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. rather  a member of the O.P.  Society and  therefore as per law if any dispute arises between the Society and its member, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and  the said dispute shall be decided by an  Arbitrator.  DW-1 has further alleged that  the complainant  did not place any demand for payment of maturity amount and also he did not submit his passbook/certificate.

In  the  present caseOpposite Party  Sahara India Co-operative Society  Ltd.  has not disputed the claim of the Complainant  in respect of  his deposit of amount with the O.P. and  the fact that  the said deposit has already been matured.  But  the learned counsel for the O.P.   has vehemently contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself is  a society member and not a consumer of the O.Ps. and as such this commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. It  has been submitted  that  as per Co-operative Societies Act  any  dispute between the Sciety and its member is to be decided by the Arbitration Court.   As such the main point to be decided in this case is  whether complainant is a consumer or not and complaint before this commission is maintainable  or not ? 

                                    According to the  O.P.  any complaint relating to monetary disputes in the society are only maintainable before the  Arbitration Court and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try such  complaint. On the other hand,  the version of the complainant  side is that he invested the money with the  O.P. and the same has already been matured . It  is also not a case of premature withdrawal.  So the O.P. is bound to make payment and as the deposit of money is not disputed  so  certainly  the  complainant  is  a consumer of opposite parties.  The learned counsel for the complainant  has further submitted that  Consumer Protection Act  is  in addition and not in derogation to the other prevalent acts. So this commission has the jurisdiction  to try and hear the present complaint. 

                                         According to the O.P.,  if there is any dispute inter se member and the society, it has to be resolved through  arbitration  as per Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002.  But it has not been specified from the side  of  O.P.  as to  who will be the arbitrator and   the location  of the  Arbitration court  where  the aggrieved person  can file his or her complaint for redressal.  Again  though the O.P. has claimed that the complainant is  a member of the society but the  complainant has denied that fact and has claimed himself as a consumer.  In section 3 of the Societies Act it has been specifically stated that “ any person eligible for membership of a multi-state co-operative society may, on his application, be admitted as a member by such society.”  So it is clear that without application being made by any person he can not be made  a member of the society.   On the other hand,  from the side of O.P.  nothing has been submitted to show that the complainant applied for taking membership of the society by putting his/her signature or thumb impression.   Again  if we go through the Consumer Protection Act we find that  in section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986  and in section 100  of the Consumer Protection Act,2019  (as  Amended ) it has been stated in clear and unambiguous terms  that the remedy before the consumer Forum/ Commission is in addition to and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts.   As  such , according to us, even if there is arbitration clause in the Society Act, the consumer complaint  is maintainable  as  it is  an  additional remedy.

 Both parties during the course of argument relied the case laws of the Hon’ble State Commissions and Hon’ble National Commissions which are in their favour.There are also conflicting decisions of the State Commissions and National Commission  on the point  whether a complaint of the instant case  is maintainable under the C.P.  Act or the dispute shall be decided only under the provision of the Society’s Act.  In  thecaselaw  Smt. Kalawati&Ors.  Vrs. M/S  UnitedVaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.  the  Hon’ble  National Commission clearly opined that a complaint in the nature of the present case  is  maintainable under CPA.  In this case law the National Commission  referred previous decision of the Commission in the case of NeelaVasantRaje Vs. Amogh Industries and anr. 1986-95 consumer 446  where the commission  had taken a view that  with reference to  section  2(1)(d) of CPA that where a company or firm invites deposites from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of  the principal  after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a ‘consumer’  under CPA.   But the same National Commission in another case law Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs.  The Managing Director, The  Koothattukulam  Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.  reported in  (2013)4 CPJ  333 (NC)   on the point ‘ whether a Member can pick up a conflict with Co-operative  Society, under the Consumer Protection Act’  opined in the negative and asked the petitioner/complainant to seek his/her grievances before the appropriate forum, except the consumer forum.  However,  in  view of the  above contradictory decisions of the National Commission  we feel it convenient and appropriate  to rely  on  the   caselaw  - The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society  Vs.  M.  Lalitha (Dead) Through  Lrs.  And Ors.  reported  in  (2004)  AIR (SC) 448 , decided by the Division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  wherein  in para (21)  it has been observed that “ Thus having regard to all aspects we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of  disputes to arbitration  shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable. The National Commission , however,  did not take note of the fact that , the State Commission had not decided the other contentions raised in the  appeals on merits.  We are inclined to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant  for remanding the case  to the State Commission for deciding the other issues on merits while affirming that  the complaints before the District Forum made by the respondents were  maintainable  and the district forum had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. In this view, while affirming the order of the National Commission as to the maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the Act, we remand the appeals to the State Commission for their adjudication on other issues on  merit  without going to the question of maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the 1986 Act.”  As such in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caselaw referred above it must be held that a remedy under consumer protection Act  is a remedy in addition to the remedy  provided under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and a  complaint under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable. 

                                   In the case  the  opposite parties have  taken  the plea that  due to the embargo put by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court upon the O.P.  Society  they are not in a position to  release the money of the complainant.  But  to substantiate this plea they have submitted nothing.   Another stand  taken by the  O.P.  is  that maturity amount could not be released as the complainant did not complete the required formalities.  But  after going through  the statements of the complainant in respect of the demand placed  before the  O.P.  for payment of the maturity amount  and  the issuance of legal notice,  this plea of the O.P .  appears to be  vague  and their  inaction  in this regard  shows   illegal denial  of  the payment  of  hard earned money of the complainant even after  the date of maturity in this or that excuse.

                                                    In view of the above, it is hold that  this complaint is maintainable and  the complainant is entitled to get relief(s)  in this case. Accordingly,  it is ordered that  the O.Ps.  Sahara India  CreditCo-operative  Society Ltd.  shall pay to the complainant the maturity  amount of Ext.-1 certificate in respect of  Sahara  Q  Shop  Unique Products A/C No.-71012224626  amounting  to  Rs.1,41,000/- only alongwith  further interest on the amount  from the date of maturity till the date of this judgment  as per stipulated rate of interest as admissible under the Society,s rules.  In addition,the  O.Ps. Society shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards compensation  for mental agony, pain and disservice  and another amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for cost of the proceeding.  It is further ordered that the entire amount shall be payable within a period of  next  90(ninety) days else  interest @ 10% per annum would be accrued on the entire amount from the date of judgment till realisation of the amount.  However, if  required  the O.Ps. may ask the complainant to submit the  original copy of certificate/passbook etc. and the complainant  shall  submit the same accordingly. With the above the case stands allowed on contest against the  contestingO.ps.

                                      The judgment is delivered on this 27th day of July  with our seal and signature.