Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/227

Shambhu nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay Chawla Adv.

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 227 dated 23.04.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 04.10.2022. 

 

Shambhu Nath Yadav son of Ram Dutt Yadav, resident of House No.13, City Enclave-2, Sahnewal Road, Sangu Palace, VTC Kohara, Tehsil and District  Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lakhnow, Uttar Prdesh-226024 through its President/Chairman/Authorized Representative.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its authorized centre at Sahara India Pariwar F.C. Office, 4372, Ground Floor, Swarn Complex, Gaispur Road, Lohara, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.                                                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ajay Chawla Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the month of March 2018, the complainant invested Rs.10,000/- each with the OPs who issued two certificates bearing No.925007733377 and No.925010715461.  The said deposit had date of maturity as 20.09.2019 and 30.09.2020 with maturity amount of Rs.11,630/- and Rs.11,470/- respectively. After the date of maturity, when the complainant approached the OPs for receiving the amount of the deposit, he was told that the company was in a financial crisis and was not in a position to make the payment to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of 10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- along with interest and the OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant is a consumer. According to the OPs, the relation between the complainant and the OPs is that of member and society. According to the OPs, in case of dispute between the member and the society, as per the provisions of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant formally did not tender any evidence. However, an affidavit of the complainant Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 are there on the file.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs also did not formally tender any evidence. However, an affidavit of Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the OPs is on the file.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.                Though the complainant in para No.3 of the complaint claims to have deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in different plans of the OPs. However, from the documents produced on record by the complainant which are Ex. C1 and Ex. C3 respectively, the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- each in two schemes. As per these certificates, the maturity amount of the deposit comes to Rs.11,630/- and Rs.11,470/- which was payable by the OPs to the complainant as on 20.09.2018 and 30.09.2019 respectively. The maturity amount of Rs.11,630/- and Rs.11,470/- was not paid by the OPs which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.11,630/- and Rs.11,470/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 20.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 respectively till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 

7.                The counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as the complainant is only a member of the OP Society and being a member, he is required to get his grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the OPs has relied upon Anjana Abraham Vs Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that a member cannot pick up a conflict with Co-operative Society under the Consumer Protection Act as the alternative remedy available under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the dispute arising among committee of Members of Society in respect of the matter relating to affairs of Society, can be proceeded under Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the concerned District Court. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that the consumer jurisdiction is barred where matter is covered under the Cooperative Society Act and, therefore, the order passed by the Consumer Forum was held to be a nullity. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon Smt. Paramita Deb Vs The Sector Head in Case No.A.2.2021 decided on 10.05.2021 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala has held that whenever there is a dispute between the member and the society, then the same is to be settled by the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and not by any court.

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for OP1 and OP2 but have found the same to be not tenable. In this regard, a reference can be made to law laid down in Mandatai Sambha Ji Pawar and another Vs State of Maharashtra passed in Writ Petition No.117 of 2011 decided on 03.05.2011 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court whereby it has been held that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and other authorities under Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In this case, there is also a reference to the law laid down the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held likewise. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that OPs are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.11,630/- and Rs.11,470/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 20.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 respectively till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Shambhu Nath Yadav  Vs Sahara Credit                                  CC/21/227

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that OPs are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.11,630/- and Rs.11,470/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 20.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 respectively till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.