Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1297/2021

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Lovepreet Singh Walia

07 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.1297

 Instituted on:   25.10.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     07.10.2022

 

 

Vinod Kumar son of Tulsa Ram, resident of Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhwanigarh, District Sangrur.                                                           

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited (Sahara India), Branch Office: Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala through its Branch Manager 147001.

2.             Sahara India Parivar, Area Office: SCO 84-A, Sector 58, SAS Nagar, 2^nd Floor, Mohali through its Area Manager. (Notice to OP number 2 not issued).

3.             Subrata Roy Sahara, Chairman, Sahara India Pariwar, Commandant Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

For complainant         : Shri Lovepreet Walia Adv.              

For  OPs 1&3            : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          : MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by investing a   sum of Rs.11,000/- on 24.10.2016 vide policy/Fixed Deposit acknowledged by the OPs by issuing    FDR    certificate    bearing   number 925-003649134 with  maturity amount of Rs.12,793/- after 24.04.2018. Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, he approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then he was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.12,793/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of investment and also for Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience and further an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared through Advocate Shri Sanjeev Goyal and filed written response raising preliminary objection regarding status  of the complainant being a consumer and also explained as to how their’s is a society and it was only on the specific request of the complainant that he was inducted as a member thereof, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant to bring this dispute before the Consumer Forum/Commission instead of approaching the Arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause.

3.             Besides the above said legal objection, OPs have also averred that it is only member of the society who can avail its benefit and, therefore, after having well understood various rules, regulations, byelaws and objectives of the society the complainant became a member and thereafter invested a sum of Rs.11,000/- in the shape of fixed deposit for 18 months.  After expiry of the said period the complainant never approached concerned officials of the OPs, as such it was not possible for the latter to release the maturity amount.  That being so, complainant could not allege himself to be a consumer of the OPs as there is no subsistence of relationship of consumer and that of the service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  So, the complainant cannot legally seek any such relief under the Consumer Protection Act, so his complaint deserves dismissal.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-2 copy of certificate showing redemption value as Rs.12,793/- and Ex.C-1 detailed affidavit of complainant.

7.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant OPs have produced only detailed affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager Ex.OP-1 and  closed evidence.

8.             Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the amount of Rs.11,000/- 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  amount of Rs.11,000/- with the opposite parties vide certificate Ex.C-2  and the maturity amount is also shown alongwith maturity date on the same. So, we are of the view that the complainant has successful in proving that he has deposited the total amount of Rs.11,000/- with the opposite parties in the shape of fixed deposit for the period as mentioned above and the opposite parties are bound to pay the amount of Rs.12,793/- on its maturity as per their certificate.

9.             However, the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection 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 him 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/Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the dispute between the Member of Society and its Manager not excluded from the Consumer Jurisdiction.

10.            As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties number 1 and 3 are directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.12,793/- as maturity amount alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of maturity till its realization. Further, the opposite parties number 1 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as costs for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

11.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 7, 2022.