Haryana

Karnal

CC/643/2021

Pardeep Vohra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Naresh Sharma

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 643 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.18.11.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:18.11.2022

 

Pardeep Vohra son of late Shri Lekhraj Vohra, resident of House no.2367, Sector 32, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj , Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024, through its authorized signatory.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society limited, Sahara India Pariwar, First floor, Kunjpura Road, near Vishhal Mega Mart, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

3.     Anil Kumar son of Shri Shyam Sunder resident of house no.187, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Naresh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Vikas Yadav, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 18.03.2020, complainant deposited a sum of Rs.14,000/- with the OP in the shape of Fixed Deposit for a period of 18 months, vide certificate no.925011291603, Membership no.22002000070, account no.22008500264 and the date of maturity was 18.09.2021. The complainant has approached the OP no.2 with a request to release the maturity amount in favour of the complainant. But the official of OP no.2 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant rather stated that they are unable to make the maturity amount to the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party; concealment of true and material facts and jurisdiction as the OP is a society and they are bound to refer their dispute before Arbitrator as per Arbitration Agreement under clause 18 of the scheme Super AB. On merits, it is pleaded that S.E.B.I. has filed petition against the OP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in which order dated 16.09.2016 has been passed vide which the OPs have been directed to deposit Rs.300 crores with the SEBI and the OPs are held entitled to sell moveable properties owned by them subject to the condition that the entire sale consideration received by them is deposited in SEBI Sahara Account and the list of the properties so sold and the consideration received against the same is filed in this court. So, in view of the above said reason the OPs are helpless to make payment of the complainant. However, after settlement of entire dispute with SEBI the OPs would proceed to pay the amount of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of FDR Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 11.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar Sinha, Manager as Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 04.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.14,000/-on 18.03.2020 for the period of 18 months with the OPs in the shape of FDR. After maturity of the said FDR, the complainant was entitled for refund of aforesaid amount alongwith interest. The complainant approached the OPs to refund the invested amount alongwith interest, then OPs firstly tried to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay the same and  prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that S.E.B.I. has filed petition against the OP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 16.09.2016 the OPs have been directed to deposit Rs.300 crores with the SEBI and the OPs are held entitled to sell moveable properties owned by them subject to the condition that the entire sale consideration received by them is deposited in SEBI Sahara Account and the list of the properties so sold and the consideration received against the same is filed in this court. So, in view of the above said reason the OPs are helpless to make payment of the complainant. However, after settlement of entire dispute with SEBI the OPs would proceed to pay the amount of the complainant. He further argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the OPs are a Society and only the Registrar of Cooperative Society has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, therefore, the dispute is to be entertained before Arbitrator as per arbitration agreement under clause 18 of the scheme Super AB, which is reproduced as under:-

        Clause 18. Arbitration:-

        All dispute between Society and Member the same shall be subject to arbitration as per the provisions of Section 84 of the “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 as amended from time to time.”  Learned counsel for OPs relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Versus The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. NCDRC759 of 2013 (4) and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             The first question for consideration before us whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not.

10.           The OPs have taken a plea that OPs are a society so this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the OPs have not placed on record any Arbitration Agreement or any document that OPs are a society. Therefore, this plea is not tenable in the eyes of law.  Furthermore, if for the sake of argument it may be considered that OPs are a society and there exists an arbitration agreement between the OPs and the complainant, in that case also this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as it is a settled proposition of law that complaint under Consumer Protection Act, being an additional remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement, the proceedings before Consumer Commission have to go on. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. In this regard, we place reliance on the case titled “M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Versus Aftab Singh, review petition © Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.55 as under:-

“We may, however, hasten to add that in the event a person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes being proceeded in arbitration. It is only the case where specific/special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to the arbitration.”

  

                Further, similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sanjay Gopinath Versus M/s IREO Grace Realitech Pvt. Ltd. (bunch of the cases) decided on 31.08.2021 wherein Hon’ble National Commission while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Versus Aftab Singh-I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC) has held that an Arbitration clause in the Agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to entertain the complaint. Hence, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the clause of Arbitration bars this commission from entertaining the complaints is unsustainable.

11.           Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and ratio of the law laid down in the above judgments, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

12.           It is evident from the receipt dated 18.03.2020 Ex.C2 an amount of Rs.14000/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs in shape of fixed deposit for a period of 18 months and the date of maturity was 18.09.2021. Receipt Ex.C2 bears the stamp/sealed of the OPs and as per copy of said documents on maturity it becomes Rs.16058/-, which has not been disputed by the OPs in their pleadings

13.           In view of the matter, credence can be given to that documents and the complainant are held entitled to Rs.16.058/-. Needless to mention here, the complainant did not avail any kind of services of the OP and have also not taken cash back, therefore, they are certainly and definitely entitled to the deposited amount as above. Hence, the act of the OP for non-honouring their own scheme, non-explaining the terms and conditions thereof to the complainant so that they could get benefit of the same for 96 months, proves deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which not only resulted in the present unnecessary litigation, but has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the complainant.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.16.058/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity of the FDR till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.4,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.2200/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:18.11.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)           (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member

                 

Sushma

Stenographer