Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/931/2019

Dina Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Nitin Thatai & Pawan Kumar

18 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/931/2019
Date of Institution	:	12/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	18/03/2021

 

Dina Nath S/o Sh. Mohan, Resident of 119/2, Maloya, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, through its Branch Head/Branch Manager Mr. Anil Kumar, 2^nd Floor, SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Vijay Bhan Singh, Agent of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY:	:	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Nitin Sharma, Cousnel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

 

1.         Averments are, on the assurances of the Opposite Parties, complainant started investing Rs.6,000/- on monthly basis in Sahara C. Anokha Scheme from Dec. 2014. The tenure of the deposit was 48 months and thus the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- with the Opposite Parties. The maturity amount was Rs.3,53,743/- and the maturity date was 01.12.2018.  After the date of maturity, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to release his maturity amount, but, they only released two Cheques of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.55,000/- dated 15.02.2019 and 28.02.2019.  Thereafter, the Complainant waited considerably for the remaining payment of Rs.2,53,743/-, however, the Opposite Parties dilly dallied the matter and did not refund the same. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.2,53,743/- alongwith interest, pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2019.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, disputing the maturity amount of Rs.3,53,743/- as per Sahara C. Anokha Scheme and thus pleading that the Complainant is not entitled to get Rs.2,53,743/-.  It was also fairly admitted that the payment if any was strictly payable as per terms & conditions of the Scheme. It has been pleaded that this Forum is not competent to adjudicate any dispute between the Society and Member. The complainant was bound to get his dispute resolved through arbitration. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.
8.         First coming to the objection regarding arbitration, the same also needs rejection in view of findings given by larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in Aftab Singh Versus Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, (DOD 13.07.2017), that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the parties cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated  13.02.2018 in Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017.
9.         Now, we advert to the second objection regarding maintainability of this complaint. In our opinion the same is also rejected keeping in mind the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e. The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co operative Agricultural Credit Society v/s M Lalitha (Dead) through LRs, decided in the year 2003 in which it was held that disputes between a cooperative housing society and its member regarding deficiency in service can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Virender Jain Versus Alaknanda Co op Group Housing Society Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 and connected matters (order dated 13.04.2013) had widened the scope of the CPA by holding that disputes between members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Fora.
10.         It is borne on record that Complainant invested in the Sahara C. Anokha Scheme of Opposite Party No.1 and deposited in total 48 monthly installments amounting to Rs.2,88,000/-. Said deposit matured on 01.12.2018 and per Complainant, he became entitled for an amount of Rs.3,53,743/- as maturity amount. Albeit, on meticulous scanning of the entire record available before us, we do not lay our hands on any such document which could show that the maturity amount was Rs.3,53,743/-. Hence, in this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant any such relief to the Complainant and are of the concerted opinion that per material on record the Complainant is only entitled to the amount of Rs.2,88,000/-. It has come on record that the Opposite Parties handed over two Cheques of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.55,000/- dated 15.02.2019 and 28.02.2019 which were duly encashed by the Complainant, thus in our concerted opinion the Complainant is only entitled to Rs.1,88,000/- i.e. Rs.2,88,000/- minus Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.45,000/- + Rs.55,000/-). On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 while refuting the contention of the Complainant vehemently argued that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the payment, if any, shall be strictly payable as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme.  However, per material on record, we are of the concerted opinion that this limb of argument is not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that Opposite Party No.1 in its written version has admitted that it has floated a Scheme by name of Sahara C. Anoka among its Members. Hence, the Members who subscribe to the above named Scheme of the Opposite Parties also become its consumers and when there is a fault on behalf of the Society in providing its services to its consumers there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is not expected from a Company like the Opposite Party No.1 to deal with their existing customers. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice. Therefore it is held that once it is an admitted fact that the amount remained deposited with the opposite parties for quite long time against which an amount of Rs.1,88,000/- is still pending therefore they are entitled to interest on the deposited amount as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) as follows:-

“9.  It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest.  Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.  For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount.  Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period.  Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.”

11.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same are partly allowed against the opposite parties.  The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

 (i)     To refund amount of Rs.1,88,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 01.12.2018;

 

(ii)     To pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

 

(iii)    To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.      

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of maturity, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of direction contained in sub-para (iii) above.
13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th Mar., 2021

                        Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”