Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/643/2021

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/643/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/09/2021
Date of Decision	:	10/01/2023

 

Jasbir Singh aged 52 years son of Sh. Kulwant singh R/o House No.855, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, U.T., Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office : Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024 through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, SCO Branch office at SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for OPs.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Jasbir singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant opened two accounts with the OPs for investment in their scheme of Rs.100/- per day. As per receipt  Annexure C-1 the complainant deposited total amount of Rs.35,700/-  in  account No.23977202071 on Rs.100/- per day basis from 15.7.2018 till 15.7.2019. Similarly vide Annexure C-2 complainant deposited total amount of Rs.22000/- in account No. 23977801463 on Rs.100/- per day basis from 15.7.2019 till 30.6.2020.

After the completion of one year when the complainant approached the OPs for the refund of the amounts deposited alongwith interest, the matter was delayed  by them on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency of service on their part. The complainant had invested the amount from his hard earned money as he was running photo shop only.  The OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.

2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, suppression of facts, jurisdiction and also that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as complainant was a member of the Society, hence the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, stated that the complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the society had availed the membership and deposited the amount. It is denied that OPs had assured the complainant that she will get any benefit or that the company will pay interest on the delay of payment. It is averred that the complainant should approach the appropriate authority i.e. Central Registrar against any grievances or should apply under arbitration clause. Even this Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint.  It is denied that the OPs have caused any loss or harassment to the complainant or that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.

1. In replication, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully.

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that complainant had deposited total amounts of ₹35,700/-  from 15.7.2018 till 15.7.2019 by depositing Rs.100/- per day (as is evident from Annexure C-1(colly) and Rs.22,000/- from 15.7.2019 till 30.6.2020 (which is evident from Annexure C-2(colly)   respectively under the aforesaid schemes with the OPs which was to be refunded by OPs after completion of one year, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant is entitled for the said amounts alongwith interest from the OPs, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, deserves dismissal, as is the defence of the OPs.
2. Annexure C-1 & C-2 are copies of passbooks and receipts which indicate that complainant had deposited total amount of ₹35,700/-   and Rs.22000/- separately under Rs.100/- per day scheme as mentioned above with the OPs for a period of 12 months and the said amounts were to mature after completion of one year..  Admittedly, the said amounts have not been paid by the OPs to the complainant till date though the OPs have no right to retain the amounts after the date of maturity.  Not only this, when it has come on record that the complainant had deposited the aforesaid amounts after being allured of good returns and even after maturity of said invested amount, the maturity amount was not paid to him, it is clear on record that there is deficiency in service  on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the said amount alongwith interest and compensation.
3. The OPs have resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint as per Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and also on account of bar under the Arbitration Act.  So far as the defence of the OPs that the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under the 2002 Act is concerned, the same is without merit as the complainant has been claiming the amount, whatever was deposited by him with the OPs has also not been disputed by the OPs. 
4. Similarly, the provisions of Arbitration Act do not affect the jurisdiction of this Commission as it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftaab, 2018 Online SCC 2378 that consumer disputes are non arbitrable.
5. So far as the defence of the OPs that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and the complainant should approach the Central Registrar as this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint and also that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act is concerned, the same is also not tenable in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vs. Anil Kasliwal & 2 Ors., III (2022) CPJ 224 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1)(d), 21 (b) – Consumer – Fixed deposit – Deposit of money in a Fixed Deposit Account cannot be termed as “commercial transaction.” – Submission of petitioner that complainants are not “consumers” is rejected.”

4. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the complainant has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint partly succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay to the complainant amounts of Rs.35700/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 15.7.2019 i.e. the date of last deposit  and Rs.22000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.6.2020 i.e. date of last deposit, till its realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

Announced 10/01/2023			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member