Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/36/2022

Charanjit Singh S/o Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Achhar Pal Sharma

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                Complaint No.36 of 2022.

                                                Date of institution:14.2.2022.

                                                Date of decision:17.8.2022.

 

Charanjit Singh son of Ram Lal, resident of #412-L, Sarni Chowk, Model Town, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                Versus.

 

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow.
2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, near Reliance Petrol Pump above Dhiman Furniture, 1^st floor, Bye Pass Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Managing Director.
3. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited 2^nd floor, SCO 84A, Phase-V, Sector-58, Shahi Majra, Mohali (Punjab) through its Area Manager.   

….Respondents.

 

CORAM:     GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT. 

                     DR. BARHM PARKASH YADAV, MEMBER.

                     GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh. AP Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                     Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Adv. for the opponent No.2.

                    (Notice of complaint was not ordered against opponents No.1 & 3).

ORDER:

 

1.               This is complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.             Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 and written statement, briefly admitted facts of the complaint are, the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Luchnow (for short Society) is registered under the provisions of the Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Act, 2002 (for short Society Act) and the Society is having one of its branch offices at Yamuna Nagar (for short “opponent No.2”), the complainant invested an amount of Rs.45371/- on 1.12.2018 by way of FDR Ex.C.2 and the opponent agreed to pay Rs.53129/- on 1.6.2020 as maturity amount qua FDR Ex.C.2, but the opponents failed to make the payment of the same on the date of maturity and thereafter, which according to the complainant, is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent society, which caused him mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constraining him to file the present complaint.

3.             On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponent No.2 in written statement have not disputed the issuance of the FDR Ex.C2 and denied any act of negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opponent society. Further pleaded, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint, as society is governed by the provisions of the Society Act and in case, there is any dispute between any of the member of the society and the Society, then the dispute is subject to the Arbitration, as per provisions of Section 84 of the Society Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this point.

4.          In order to prove his version, complainant kept reliance upon documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. In order to prove defence version, opponents kept reliance upon the version made into the written statement has been reiterated to. (For the purpose of brevity in the order, only material documents having bearing on the merits of the case shall be discussed and remaining may not be). 

5.             Sh. AP Sharma, Adv. for the complainant, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance on case law titled Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC); M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018. 

6.            On the another hand, Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Adv, for the opponent No.2 in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint as well as written statement and he submitted, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, because complainant is the member of the Society and as such, he is not falling within the definition of consumer as and when, there is a dispute between the member of the society and the society, then the dispute is to be referred to the arbitration, as envisaged under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of M/s Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 (from the order dated 23.8.2012 in FA No.756 of 2011 of State Commission, Kerala) D.O.D.2.9.2013.

7.         There are two moot questions before the Commission, first, whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission, secondly, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent and against whom? 

8.            There is no dispute, as per FDR Ex.C2, the complainant is the member of the Society. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the opponent No.2 in case of M/s Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., was by a Single Member of the National Commission, New Delhi, whereas the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the complainants, in case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC) is by Three Members of the National Commission, New Delhi and it has more weight than to the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the opponent and in the law cited (Supra) by counsel for the complainant, it has clearly been held “the Member of the Society has certain rights in the Society like attending its meeting and right to vote. A member is a separate entity from the Co-operative Society which is just like a shareholder as in the company registered under the Companies Act, 1986. Here is the society of which the complainants are members, invited deposits and pays interest and is to refund the amount with interest on maturity. Society provides facilities in connection with financing and is, certainly, rendering services to its members and here is a member who avails of such services. When there is a fault on the part of the society and itself is not paying the amount on fixed deposit receipts, on maturity, there is certainly deficiency in service by the society and a complaint is maintainable against society by the members as complainant”. 

9.           Moreover, the remedy to raise grievance by the consumer is an additional remedy even, there was Arbitration clause as envisaged under section 100 of the Act. View of this Commission is fully supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D.O.D. 10^th December, 2018. Considering the law cited (supra) by the counsel for the complainant and law cited (Supra) laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018, the complainant falls within the definition of the Consumer for the purpose of this complaint and this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

10.            Coming to the second question, the opponent No.2 in their written version have not disputed issuance of FDR Ex.C.2 in favour of the complainant.  The amount of FDR Ex.C.2 vide which amount of Rs.45371/- was invested had become Rs.53129/- on its date of maturity i.e. 1.6.2020, but the opponent Society failed to pay the same to the complainant till date and the opponents kept the amount of the FDR Ex.C.2 for considerable time, therefore, it is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices. Apart from making payment of maturity amount of Rs.53129/- qua certificate Ex.C.2, the opponent No.2 society is also liable to be burdened with punitive damages and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) awarded against the opponent society to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, financial loss, litigation cost, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

11.          Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is accepted against the opponent No.2, holding it liable to make payment of maturity amount in the sum of Rs.53129/- qua FDR Ex.C.2 (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand, One Hundred Twenty Nine only) to the complainant + punitive damages in the sum of Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to compensate the complainant in all heads, total Rs.68129/- (53129+15000) (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred Twenty Nine Only), within the period of two months from the date of this order, in default of it, the opponent No.2 shall be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum on the total award amount from the date of order till its actual realization.

12.              File be consigned to the records. 

Dated: 17.8.2022.

 

                                                             (GULAB SINGH)

                                                        Distt. & Sessions Judge (VRS),

                                                                 PRESIDENT,

                                                                 DCDRC, YNR.

 

(GEETA PARKASH)       (DR.BARHM PARKASH YADAV)

 MEMBER.                       MEMBER.

 

 

Typed by Gaphoor Deen, Assistant.