Punjab

Sangrur

CC/102/2018

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

G.S.Shergill

18 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint No. 102

Instituted on:   01.03.2018

                                                                   Decided on:     18.07.2018

 

Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh resident of Village Rajpura, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperatvive Society Ltd. Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kaapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through Managing Director.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Branch Office Main Bazar Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

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

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :             Shri Ashish Grover,Adv.         

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

          ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Gurmeet 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 he availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  vide different policies/ FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each  on 10.06.2016. The date of maturity  of all the said FDRs  was 10.12.2017 and maturity value of the each FDR is Rs.23260/-  totaling to Rs.1,16,300/- . After due date of said FDRs the complainant submitted original FDRs  with OP no.2 for releasing the amount. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount but they failed to do so. 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.1,16,300/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization 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 vide membership number 56151600052 on 10.06.2016 had chosen to invest Rs.100000/-  in five FDRs i.e. Rs.20,000/-  in each FDR 18 months at Franchise office Bhawanigarh of Society. It is further submitted that the complainant was provided application form to fill and submit the same with original pass book . The society was ready to make the payment but the complainant demanded additional interest after date of maturity and refused to receive the payment of maturity amount which was payable as per the terms and conditions. It is also stated that the society never denied or refused to make the payment. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 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 invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in five different policies/ FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each  on 10.06.2016 which is evident from the copies of the said FDRs produced on record which  are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. The date of maturity of all the said FDRs  was 10.12.2017 and maturity value of the each FDRs is Rs.23260/-  totaling to Rs.1,16,300/-.  The complainant's has further stated that after due date of said FDRs the complainant deposited  original FDRs  with OP no.2 for releasing the amount and  requested the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount but they failed to do so. 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.             From the perusal of entire record, we find that it is not disputed on record that the  complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.100000/-with OPs in five FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each and maturity value of the each FDR is Rs.23260/-  totaling to Rs.1,16,300/-. So, we feel that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant the above said maturity amount of the five FDRs i.e. Rs.1,16,300/-.

 

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.116300/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e.10.12.2017 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 18, 2018.

 

 

                ( V.K.Gulati)      ( Sarita Garg)  (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                   Member                 Member                   President