Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/558/2020

Meenakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Brijesh Kumar

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/558/2020
Date of Institution	:	18/11/2020
Date of Decision	:	26/07/2022

             

Meenakshi w/o Shri Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal s/o Shri Dharam Singh aged 33 years, r/o House No.740/A, Shivalik Vihar, Phase – 3, Nayagaon, Mohali, Punjab. 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited through its Managing Director, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226024.
2. Sahara India Ltd., SCO No.1110, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/559/2020
Date of Institution	:	18/11/2020
Date of Decision	:	26/07/2022

             

Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal s/o Shri Dharam Singh aged 36 years r/o House No.740/A, Shivalik Vihar, Phase – 3, Nayagaon, Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited through its Managing Director, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226024.
2. Sahara India Ltd., SCO No.1110, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Nitin Sharma, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.558 of 2020 titled as Meenakshi Vs. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited & Anr.
3.     Briefly stated allegations are, on the assurances and commitments made by the OPs of good returns, complainant invested certain amount with them as per following details :-

1	2	3	4	5	6
Sr. No.	Certificate No.	Date of Deposit	Amount Deposited (In Rs.)	Date of Maturity	Maturity Amount (In Rs.)
	80869280074	31.12.2019	50,691/-	31.12.2022	70,882/-

In the other Consumer Complaint, referred above, detail of amount deposited is as under:-

1	2	3	4	5	6
Sr. No.	Certificate No.	Date of Deposit	Amount Deposited (In Rs.)	Date of Maturity	Maturity Amount (In Rs.)
CC/559/2020
	80869280075	31.12.2019	26,000/-	31.12.2022	36,530/-

Averred, OPs are accused of fraud and violating rules to collect deposits worth thousands of crores, as detailed in the consumer complaint.  On coming to know that they are good at transferring deposits from one scheme to another without taking consent of depositors, the complainant requested them to withdraw from the membership, release the amount deposited till date and submitted all the documents with the local office/OP-2 at Chandigarh, but, they lingered the matter.  Maintained, failure of the OPs to refund the deposited amount caused mental and physical harassment to her. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.    

4.      OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly misconceived and vexatious; there is no relationship of consumer and service provider inter se the complainant and the OPs and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the same is liable to be referred to the arbitrator as per Clause 9 of the scheme. It has been averred that the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is of Member and Society and, therefore, for any dispute between the society and the Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. It has been pleaded that the complainant before opting the scheme had duly understood its terms and conditions and being a member of the Society, invested money for furtherance of the objects of the society.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant cannot get benefit beyond the terms and conditions of the scheme.  Denied that the complainant can claim the amount before the date of maturity i.e. 31.12.2022. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of consumer complaint.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7.      The first plea of the OPs is that the instant consumer complaint is not maintainable under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as relationship between the complainant and OPs is of member and the Society. However, we do not find any weight in this submission as it is not a pure dispute between members of a cooperative Society regarding its governance. In fact, it is a dispute with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the OPs for a particular period and refund of the same. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined under 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 OPs has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. Besides this, it is well settled law that remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Here we are strengthened by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs & Ors.", 2004(1) CLT 456 in which it was held as under:-

“11. From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever 'appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalities for non-compliance of their orders.

12.  As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar."

8.      Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Co op Group Housing Society Ltd., Civil Appeal No.64 of 2010 and connected matters, decided on 13.04.2013 had also widened the scope of CPA by holding that disputes between members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Fora. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Hence, it is held that the instant consumer complaint is maintainable against the OPs and this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
9.     The next plea taken by the OPs is that the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to arbitration as per Clause 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002. In this respect, it needs to be mentioned that the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh v. EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr., held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) filed against the said order of the Hon’ble National Commission has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed against above said order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2018. Consequently, it is held that existence of Arbitration Clause in the agreement is not a bar to resolve the present dispute by this Commission. Thus, this objection of the OPs is also rejected.
10.     From a perusal of the certificate/receipt produced on record as Annexure C-1 by the complainant, it is established that the complainant had deposited the amount with the OPs for a fixed period, as depicted in the table above, under the scheme of the OPs and the same carried interest. Admittedly, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount before the date of maturity.  Though the plea of the OPs is that the maturity amount cannot be returned to the complainant, before the date of maturity, but we do not find any merit in the same.  If a consumer wants refund of his/her amount, he/she is free to seek refund at any stage and the service provider is bound to refund the same after applying some deduction or levying applicable (lower) rate of interest. However, the OPs failed to do so.  Pertinently, the complainant in the instant consumer complaint has only prayed for refund of the principal amount with interest and not the maturity amount. Therefore, the act of the OPs in not refunding even the said amount to the complainant certainly amounts to deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.
11.      Admittedly the amount has remained deposited with the OPs and till date they are enjoying benefits of the same to the detriment of the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the OPs should refund the principal amount alongwith simple interest to the complainant.
12.      In view of the above discussion, both the consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-
    1. to refund the principal alongwith simple interest @6% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit, as depicted in the table above, till realisation.
    2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
13.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.     The other consumer complaint, mentioned above, is also partly allowed with similar reliefs.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
26/07/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member