Punjab

Sangrur

CC/54/2018

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.G.S.Nandpuri

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint No. 54

Instituted on:   12.02.2018

                                                                   Decided on:     16.07.2018

 

Charanjit Singh son of Balwant Singh resident of VPO Badbar, Tehsil and District Barnala-148106.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperation Society Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthla Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226 024 through its MD.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperation Society Ltd. through its Regional Manager Office, Sahara India Parivar SCO 1110-1111 2nd Floor, 22B, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager.

3.     Sahara Credit Cooperation Society Ltd. through its Sector Manager, Sector Office Sahara Parivar Lower Mall Road Near Sethi Sales, Opp. Polo Ground Patiala through its Branch Manager.

4.     Sahara Credit Cooperation Society Ltd. through its Branch Manager, B.O. Firni Road, Near Ram Mandir, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :             Shri Ashish Grover,Adv.         

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

         

ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Charanjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of Ops, the complainant availed the services of the Ops by opening a FD account bearing number 63076200231 and membership number 63071600044 on 13.06.2016 and deposited Rs.100000/- in the office of OP no.4  for 12 months and after the expiry of the same, the OP was to pay an amount of Rs.109,000/-, but the Ops failed to pay the amount despite the expiry of the maturity period which expired on 13.06.2017. The complainant deposited the original FD with OPs on 13.06.2016 and OPs issued receipt dated 13.06.2016 in this regard. Further case of the complainant is that though he got served a legal notice upon the Ops on 06.01.2018, but despite that nothing was paid to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.1,14000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is a member of the society and if any member of the society has any grievance then he should go to the arbitrator for arbitration. On merits, it is stated that the complainant being the member of the society opened an account under membership number 63071600044 and invested Rs.100000/- for 12 months.  It is stated that  the complainant was issued  certificate wherein the maturity amount  is entitled  as Rs.1,09,000/- and Rs.109000/- only is payable to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.1,14,000/- as maturity amount or any interest. It is stated further that the present dispute is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/2 document and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had opened a FD account in question on 13.06.2016 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of  12 months and after the expiry of the term of one year, the Ops were liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.109,000/-,  but the grievance of the complainant is that the said amount has not been paid despite the fact the expiry date of 13.06.2017 has already elapsed and the complainant approached the Ops so many times for the payment and also got served a legal notice upon the Ops, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  Ex.C-1 is the sworn affidavit of the complainant to support his contention in the complaint.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself is a society member and is not a consumer of the Ops. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the matter in question is covered under Sections 55,56 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Society Act, 1961 and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and to support this contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has cited Sampuran Singh Deol versus Manager, The Doraha Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. and others 1997(2) CPJ 481 (Punjab State Commission).  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts and as such it is stated that this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and to support such a contention the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Secretary, Thiruurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha (dead) 2004 AIR (SC) 448.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that if the cooperative society fails to refund deposited amount on maturity to its members, then it has been held that the provisions of the law are of no bar to consumer jurisdiction. This view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Kalawati and others versus Unitedvaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. 2002(1) CPJ 71(NC). As such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.

 

6.             Now, coming to the point of the amount payable to the complainant on maturity. In this regard, we will go with the Ops and are of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.1,09,000/-  being maturity amount is payable  to the complainant as per policy document Ex. C-3 on record.

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.109000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e.13.06.2017 till realization in full. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation and further Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.       

Announced.

 

                July 16, 2018.

 

 

                ( Sarita Garg)                   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                   Member                            President