Complaint No: 25 of 2022.
Date of Institution: 03.03.2022.
Date of order: 06.09.2023
Baljeet Kaur aged about 45 years wife of Malkiat Singh, resident of Village Kothe, Talwandi Bharath, Aliwal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. Pincode - 143507
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
- Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., (SCCSL), through its Managing Director, Registered Office Sahara India, Bhawan-01, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow (U.P) - 226024.
- Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., (SCCSL) through its Branch Manager, MANGO F.C. - 11, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. Pincode - 831012
- Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., (SCCSL) through its Branch Manager, 101-102, National Shopping Complex, Hide Market, Ram Bagh Amritsar-143001.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint Under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Onkar Singh Sodhi, Advocate.
For the opposite parties: Sh.S.S.Litter, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Baljeet Kaur, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited Rs.60,000/- in the Sahara E-shine Scheme vide 4 sums of Rs.15,000/- each vide certificate No. 351000404031, 351000404032, 351000404033 & 351000404034 on 29.4.2011 for the period of 96 months as fixed deposits with opposite parties. It is further pleaded that in exchange opposite parties agreed to pay a fixed sum at a fixed time with a fixed rate of interest to complainant and issued above stated 4 certificates. The complainant made initial deposit with opposite party No. 2 in 2011 but in the year 2015, the complainant shifted from Jamshedpur to present address and transferred its account from the office of opposite party No. 2 to the office of opposite party No. 3 and now the account of complainant is maintained in the office of opposite party No.3 and the amount is payable to the complainant through opposite party No. 3. It is further pleaded that as per the certificates issued by the opposite parties against deposits to complainant, the maturity amount is Rs.36,480/- against each certificate (i.e. total amount Rs.36,480/- x 4 = Rs.1,45,920/-) and the maturity date is 29.4.2019 of each deposit. It is alleged that after the maturity of above stated deposits, complainant approached to the office of opposite party No. 3 and requested to pay the amount payable to her under Sahara E-shine Scheme, but opposite party No. 3 did not pay any amount payable towards complainant qua above stated deposits till now and is making excuses again and again. It is further pleaded that the complainant has visited to the office of opposite parties many times, but the complainant could not get even a single penny till now and the services of the opposite parties were hired by the complainant and as such, this case falls within the definition of "Consumer". It is further pleaded that the complaint is well within time and the complainant is well within his right to file the case under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to get its grievance redressed. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony and physical harassment and inconvenience and as such there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,45,920/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of maturity till the realization of the said amount. The opposite parties be also directed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment as well as inconvenience to the complainant for not making the payment of the amount matured and Costs of the proceedings as well as legal expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/- also be awarded to the complainant in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that at the outset, answering opposite parties denies each and every averments and allegations made in the complaint, that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands as the present complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and unsustainable in law is liable to be dismissed, that the answering opposite parties is a Society, which is formed and duly constituted under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002. It is further pleaded that being a multistate Co-operative Society, activities of the opposite parties is governed by the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 alone. It is further pleaded that the Act of 2002 is a complete code in itself and inter-alia provides for rights, obligations, privileges and duties of the Co-operative Societies and their members. It is further pleaded that the Act, inter-alia also provides for settlement of disputes amongst the societies and their members, that the opposite parties do not provide services to the members rather, the members jointly constitute a society and they are responsible to protect the interest of the society. It is further pleaded that the members of society made contribution for the benefit of the objects of society and the complainant never hired any service of the society, so there was no occasion for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the society/opposite parties, that it may be worthwhile to note that the term 'member' has been defined by the Act of 2002 under section - 3(n) which is reproduced herein as under:
- “Member means a person joining in the application for the registration of a multi-State cooperative society and includes a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the byelaws.”
It is further pleaded that the complainant was admitted to membership of the society as per the above provisions of the Act, 2002, therefore the provisions of the Act, 2002 as well as rules and bylaws of the society are binding upon the complainant and the relation between the complainant and society is that of a member and society not of a consumer and service provider. It is further pleaded that therefore, for any dispute between society and members, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, that it is submitted that after registration as a multi-state cooperative society, the opposite parties had launched a contributory scheme and admitted members in terms of the Act of 2002, the rules framed there under and the bye- laws of the society. It is further pleaded that the contributory scheme is run among the members for their benefit and the members are bound to desist from any act or omission which may cause harm or damage to the society, that being a member the complainant has to follow the guidelines of the society His/her rights, interest, and obligations are governed by the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 which is a complete code in itself and inter-alia provides for dispute redressal mechanism between the society and its members, that the complainant is violated the statutory provision of demand notice and the present consumer complaint is not a maintainable, that the complainant after understanding the bylaws and objects of the society had become a member and after becoming a member of the society he had shared amount under a scheme at ops office, that the complainant is not a consumer. It is further pleaded that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties. M/s Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Society") is duly registered under "Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002" and the complainant is a member of Society and thus relation between the complainant and the opposite parties is of Member and Society. It is further pleaded that this Hon’ble Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try the disputes arising between Society and its member and as such consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost, that if the complainant who is a member of the Society has any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per clause of Sahara. E Shine Scheme, which is reproduced herein as under:-
“Arbitration
- In case of any dispute between Co-operative Society and Member account holder, the same shall be decided by arbitration as per "Multi State Co-operative Society Act 2002". Arbitration proceedings and proceedings arising out of the award shall be binding on both the parties.”
It is further pleaded that there exist a valid arbitration agreement between Society and member, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is pleaded that as per the terms and conditions the members are also required to be present personally at the office of Society with Identity proof to get the payment and to sign discharge voucher. However, the complainant has failed to comply these provisions. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties and the Opposite Parties never caused any loss, agony or harassment to the Complainant and the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baljeet Kaur (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed reply and not filed any other document.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the complainant but not filed by the opposite parties.
8. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further argued that complainant deposited Rs.60,000/- in the Sahara E-shine Scheme vide 4 sums of Rs.15,000/- each vide certificate No. 351000404031, 351000404032, 351000404033 & 351000404034 on 29.4.2011 for the period of 96 months as fixed deposits with opposite parties. It is further argued that in exchange opposite parties agreed to pay a fixed sum at a fixed time with a fixed rate of interest to complainant and issued above stated 4 certificates. It is further argued that as per the certificates issued by the opposite parties against deposits to complainant, the maturity amount is Rs.36,480/- against each certificate (i.e. total amount Rs.36,480/- x 4 = Rs.1,45,920/-) and the maturity date is 29.4.2019 of each deposit. It is further argued that opposite parties be to pay the amount of Rs.1,45,920/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of maturity till the realization of the said amount.
10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt of amount is admitted. There is nothing to show that opposite parties ever asked the complainant to complete any formalities for release of amount. This version is only afterthought version to delay refund of amount.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that answering opposite parties is a Society, which is formed and duly constituted under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002. It is further submited that being a multistate Co-operative Society, activities of the opposite parties is governed by the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 alone. It is further pleaded that there exist a valid arbitration agreement between Society and member, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is pleaded that as per the terms and conditions the members are also required to be present personally at the office of Society with Identity proof to get the payment and to sign discharge voucher. However, the complainant has failed to comply these provisions. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties and the Opposite Parties never caused any loss, agony or harassment to the Complainant and the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It i s further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the payment was never denied to the complainant, but he failed to complete formalities. He is at fault for this delay. He i s not entitled to any interest after maturity period.
To support these submissions, learned counsel for opposite parties has cited following case law: -
(i) Sonic Surgical Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, 2010(1) CPR 28 (SC);
(ii ) Union Bank of India Vs. M/s Seppo Rally Oy and Another, AIR 2000 SC 62;
(iii ) Raj an Kapoor Vs. State Officer, HUDA, Ambala and Another, 2012 (1) CPR 97 (NC);
(iv) American Express Bank Limited Travel Related Services and Another Vs. Raj esh Gupta and others, 2000(1) CPR 22 (NC);
(v) Prefex Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wi di a (India) Ltd. and Anr., III (2005) CPJ 90 (NC);
(vi ) National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jindal Steel Industries & Anr., 2000 (1) CPR 147
(vii ) A. Savithri and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2010 (4) CPR 105.
12. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through case law cited by learned counsel for opposite parties.
13. The complainant has pleaded that he invested amounts, which were to mature on 29.4.2019. This fact i s also not denied by opposite parties. The complainant has asserted that opposite parties have failed to refund amount. Objection of opposite parties is that the complainant has failed to complete formalities, but fact remains that complainant has not been made payments. It amounts to deficiency in services.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,45,920/- to the complainant, which matured on 29.04.2019. As opposite parties have delayed the payment, the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum as compensation on amount of Rs.1,45,920/- from 29.04.2019 till date of payment. Opposite parties are at liberty to get filled up any requisite form from the complainant, if so required for release of payment to him. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Sept. 06, 2023 Member
*YP*
