Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 is Credit Cooperative Society and it use to get deposit  the amount from various consumers through different schemes on interest basis. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3  are the authorized regional as well as franchise offices  of Opposite Party No.1 company at Moga as well as at Ludhiana. Opposite Party No. 2 is Incharge  cum Responsible person for acts and deeds of Opposite Party No.1 here at Moga.  Further alleges that on the allurement of Opposite Party No. 2, the complainants deposited his hard earned money with Opposite Parties in the shape of different Fixed Deposit Receipts for 96 months on interest basis, the detail of which as follows:-

Further as per the terms and conditions of the FDRs, after completion of 96 months from the date of opening of account, maturity shall be paid to the Member Account Holder alongwith the interest as per the Account Settlement Chart and in this way, the said FDRs are maturity on 18.08.2020 and 21.08.2020 respectively. As such, there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. On the  maturity dates,  the Opposite Parties were bound to make the maturity amount of the hard earned money of the complainant. After the maturity dates, the complainant made various requests to the Opposite Parties to release the maturity amount deposited by the complainant in the shape of FDRs mentioned above. Initially, the Opposite Parties asked the complainant to wait for some months, but later on  the Opposite Parties have been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Now, the Opposite Parties have flatly refused to pay any amount to the complainant, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The repeated requests have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to make the maturity amount of the FDRs in question, and not indulge the complainant into any litigation, but the opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to make the maturity amount of Rs.2,61,200/- of the FDRs alongwith future interest  @ 18 % per annum from the date of maturity dates till its actual realization. 

b)      The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.33,000/- may please be allowed.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Opposite Parties  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not approached this District Consumer Commission with clean hands as the present complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has agreed that he/ she shall abide by the rules and regulations of the scheme in letter and spirit and the claim of the complainant is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the scheme had become a member and after becoming a member of the scheme, he shared the amount under a scheme at Opposite Parties office.  The complainant is not a consumer. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and Opposite Parties. The relation between the complainant and the Opposite Parties is of member and society. Moreover, 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 scheme. The complainant has invested his money for furtherance of the objects of society and any person who is not a member has no right to take part in the scheme of society which  provided that under section 84 Multi State Co-operative Society Act 2002, the court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

84. Reference of disputes.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute [other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State co-operative society against its paid employee or an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)] touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society arises—

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or

(b) between a member, past member and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State co-operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi-State co-operative society or liquidator, past or present, or

(c) between the multi-State co-operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the multi-State co-operative society, or

(d) between the multi-State co-operative society and any other multi-State co-operative society, between a multi-State co-operative society and liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society or between the liquidator of one multi-State co-operative society and the liquidator of another multi-State co-operative society, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, namely:—

(a) a claim by the multi-State co-operative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not;

(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the multi-State co-operative society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;

(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-State co-operative society.

(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to arbitration under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State co-operative society, the decision thereon of the arbitrator shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

(4) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Registrar.

(5) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As such,  there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is not entitled to any other amount, interest, compensation or litigation costs. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Randhir Kumar Ex.Op1 alongwith copy of  authority letter Ex.Op2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties  have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively.   The deposit of the amount by the complainant with Opposite Parties not disputed.  The main plea raised by the Opposite Parties is that the complainant has agreed that he/ she shall abide by the rules and regulations of the scheme in letter and spirit and the claim of the complainant is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant after understanding the byelaws and objects of the scheme had become a member and after becoming a member of the scheme, he shared the amount under a scheme at Opposite Parties office.  The complainant is not a consumer. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and Opposite Parties. The relation between the complainant and the Opposite Parties is of member and society. Moreover, 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 scheme. The complainant has invested his money for furtherance of the objects of society and any person who is not a member has no right to take part in the scheme of society which  provided that under section 84 Multi State Co-operative Society Act 2002, the court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties.

7.       First plea raised by the opposite parties 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 Fora has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the dispute between the Member of Society and its Manager not excluded from the Consumer Jurisdiction. In case titled Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Versus Kamlender Kashyap & Ors reported in I(2008)CPJ-404(NC), it was observed that additional remedy is provided under Section 3 of the Act and jurisdiction of fora is not barred by any other clause/ remedy. In case titled Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Versus Kamlender Kashyap & Ors reported in I (2008) CPJ-404 (NC), it was observed that additional remedy is provided under Section 3 of the Act and jurisdiction of fora is not barred by Arbitration Clause. Further in case titled Pasumarthi S.N. Murthi (Dr.) Versus Nischint Constructions reported in I (2003) CPJ-399 (A.P.), it was observed that Fora is at liberty to proceed with matters rather to relegate to arbitration since the Act intends to relieve consumers of cumbersome arbitration proceedings. Keeping in view the citations as referred to above this complaint is maintainable in this Commission and the  complainant has a right to get his grievances redressed through this channel of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).   Further, in this regard, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble National Commission in case WESTERN RAILWAY v. VINOD SHARMA, I (2017) CPJ 279 (NC), while discussing the various provisions of the Act and by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which it was observed that having due regard to the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, the better provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction.

8.       Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the National Commission as discussed above, the aforesaid contention of the appellants/opposite parties is rejected, holding that the Consumer Commission/District Commission is duly authorized and competent to decide the dispute between the parties and the District Commission duly exercised the jurisdiction under law.

9.       Similarly, the application filed by the Opposite Parties to decide the instant complaint at its initial stage on the ground of maintainability also stands disposed of.  

10.     Further contention of ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties is that the complainant never approached the Opposite Parties for the payment i.e. before or after the maturity date of the deposited amount, so at this stage, the complainant is not entitled to the future interest, but we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, after receiving the notice of complaint, the Opposite Parties appeared through its counsel and on the receipt of notice of the complaint filed by the complainant before this District Consumer Commission,  at the initial stage despite filing the written statement, the Opposite Parties could make the payment of the deposited amount to the complainant, but they did not bother to do so and as such, the Opposite Parties are liable to make the payment to the complainant alongwith interest till its actual realization.

11.     Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the amount with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the records it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the above mentioned amount  with the opposite parties as per scheme.

12.     Resultantly, we  allow the complaint  of the complainants. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to make the payment of maturity amount of Rs.2,61,200(Two lakh sixty one thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the respective dates of its maturity till its actual realization. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation  of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses, to the Complainants. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainants shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

13.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 05.04.2022.