Haryana

Panchkula

CC/111/2020

MR.SHAM SUNDER BAGLA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA & SAPNA VASUDEVA.

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	109 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	21.03.2022

Sh. Sham Sunder Bagla S/o Sh. Ram Chander, House No.3312/1, Sector-40D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, #1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aligang, Lucknow-226024.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. SCO No.-1110-1111, Sector-22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.     Sh. S.P.Kushwaha, Franchisee Head, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, C/o M/s Sahara India, Office No.16, Shiva Shopping Complex, Rally, Sector-12A, Panchkula-134112.  

….Opposite Parties

Present:     Complainant in person alongwith Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate for the OPs No.1 to 3.

 

                                                And

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	108 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	21.03.2022

Sh. Sham Sunder Bagla S/o Sh. Ram Chander, House No.3312/1, Sector-40D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, #1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aligang, Lucknow-226024.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. SCO No.-1110-1111, Sector-22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.     Sh. S.P.Kushwaha, Franchisee Head, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, C/o M/s Sahara India, Office No.16, Shiva Shopping Complex, Rally, Sector-12A, Panchkula-134112. 

….Opposite Parties

Present:     Complainant in person alongwith Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate for the OPs No.1 to 3.

 

                                        And

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	111 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	02.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	21.03.2022

Sh. Sham Sunder Bagla S/o Sh. Ram Chander, House No.3312/1, Sector-40D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, #1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aligang, Lucknow-226024.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. SCO No.-1110-1111, Sector-22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.     Sh. S.P.Kushwaha, Franchisee Head, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, C/o M/s Sahara India, Office No.16, Shiva Shopping Complex, Rally, Sector-12A, Panchkula-134112. 

….Opposite Parties

Present:     Complainant in person alongwith Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate for the OPs No.1 to 3.

 

                                               

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,  2019.

Before:      Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

       

ORDER

(As per Satpal, President)  

1.     The above mentioned complaints have been taken together for their disposal vide common order as  by and large similar question of law and facts are involved in the above mentioned complaints. The learned counsel for both the parties have consented to the adjudication of the said complaints vide a common order. 

2.     For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.109 of 2020 (Sham Sunder Bagla Vs. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited & Others) as agreed by both the the Ld. counsels for the parties.

3.             Briefly stated the facts as alleged in the complaint are that the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as OPs) approached to the complainant in the fixed deposit scheme of the OPs and they further pursued the complainant that he will get the interest over the same and lured him for investing the money in scheme of the OPs. As per the allurement, the complainant had invested Rs.11,139/- and Rs.11,139/- in good  faith on 28.04.2018 vide receipt/FD Certificate No.418000380004 and 418000380005. The complainant is the nominee of the FD holder. Unfortunately, the wife of the complainant, the FD holder expired on 25.09.2019. Thereafter, the complainant  requested the OPs to pay the Death Maturity benefit of the said FD, which they promised would do, on the complainant surrendering the original FD and submitting other relevant documents vide his letter dated 30.10.2019. Upon being asked about the delay in repayment, the concerned official of the OPs informed him that due to some alleged financial constraints, the company is not paying any amount to anyone. The complainant several time approached to the OPs to make the payment of the above said amount, but the OPs are lingering on the matter on the one pretext or the other and not releasing the maturity amount of the complainant. Due to non payment by the OPs, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, the present complaint.

        The details of payment in other complaints is given as under:-

a.       Compliant No.108 of 2020

Sr. No.	Name	Certificate No.	Date of Deposit/Amount	Date of Maturity/amount	Account No.
1	Sham Sunder Bagla	925001317240	01.12.2017 180000 lacs	01.06.2019 209340/-	77416700970

b.       Compliant No.111 of 2020

Sr. No.	Name	Certificate No.	Date of Deposit/Amount	Date of Maturity/amount	Account No.
1	Sham Sunder Bagla	418000380006	28.04.2018 1207/-	28.04.2021 1607/-	77417200250
2	-do-	418000380003	28.04.2018 11140	28.04.2021 14827/-	77417200246
3	-do-	418000380002	28.04.2018 11140	28.04.2021 14827/-	77417200245
4	-do-	418000380001	28.04.2018 11140	28.04.2021 14827/-	77417200244

 

4.             Upon notice OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; the complainant does not falls under the definition of the consumer and no jurisdiction. On merits, OPs stated that there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OPs(hereinafter called as the society). It is also stated that complainant had self visited at the office of the OPs and became the member of the society to get beneficiaries of the said scheme. As far as opening of the said scheme is concerned the same is matter of record. The Society was always ready to make the payment as per the conditions of scheme but due to enhance demand of interest of maturity amount the payment could not be made to the complainant at that time. There is valid arbitration agreement between the parties and OPs always works as per the terms of the agreement and byelaws of the society. Further, the complainant demand enhance interest beyond the scheme and scope of the agreement in his notice hence rejected by the OPs and dispute is arise which is dispute between member and society and hence this Hon’ble Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             To prove his case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs by making a separate statement stated that the written statement filed on 17.02.2021 may be read into evidence on behalf of the OPs and closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OPs, minutely and carefully.

7.             Admittedly, the complainant being a member of the Society i.e. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited vide membership No.77411600507, as per receipts(Annexure C-1 & C-2) deposited a sum of Rs.11,139/- and Rs.11,139/- in the scheme, namely, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, belonging to OPs, for a period of 36 months and accordingly a certificate Nos.418000380004 &  418000380005 (Annexure C-1 & C-2) was issued by the OPs to the complainant mentioning  therein the maturity amount as Rs.14,826/- & 14,826/- and Maturity date 28.04.2021. As per the complainant, the OPs did not make the payment of said maturity amount to him despite his several visits to their office asking them to release the maturity amount to him. Finding no response from the OPs, the present complaint has been filed seeking the release of maturity amount of Rs.11,139/- & Rs.11,139/- alongwith interest @15%p.a. w.e.f. 28.04.2018. Further, a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.11,000/- has been claimed on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges and cost respectively.

8.             The complaint has been contested, apart from merits, by raising several preliminary objections qua the maintainability of the complaint.  The first objection is that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs as the complainant is only a member of the Society, which is duly registered under “Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002”. The ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs contended that the Ops do not provide any service to its members; rather, the members jointly constitute a society and they are responsible to protect the interest of the society. It is contended that the members of their society contributed their shares for benefits of the objects of the society and the members are bound to desist from any act or omission which may cause harm or damage to the society. It is further argued that the OPs had launched a contributory scheme and admitted members in terms of the Act of 2002, the rules framed there under and the bye-laws of the society and that the contributory schemes are run among the members for their benefits. It is vehemently contended that a consumer complaint is not maintainable in a dispute between a member and the society and in this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the case law titled as M/s Anjana Abraham Chembethil, Mutholapura PO Ernakulam Vs. The Managing Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Limited reported in 2013(4) CPJ 333(NC). Further, reliance has been placed upon the following case laws:

1. Hon’ble State Commission, Tripura at Agartala in its judgment and order dated 10.05.2021 passed in Appeal No.02/2021 Smt. Paramita Deb Vs. The Sector Head, Agartala City Sector Office, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited.
2. Hon’ble District Forum- Bhiwani in C.C.No73/2018 Shudhansu Sharma Vs. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and others, and Hon’ble District Forum-Raisen in C.C.No.03/2018 Sri Ram, Swaroop Sharma Vs. Branch Manager Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and another.
3. CCNo.31/2018 Santosh Bhavsar Vs. Prakash Patil Sahara India Pariwar and others, District Commission, Sihore.

                The next objection is that there exist a valid arbitration agreement between the society and the complainant/members and as per provisions contained in Section 84 of the Multi State Co- operative Society Act, 2002, a dispute, if any, between the society and the members was/is liable to be referred to arbitration of its adjudication.  It is contended that as per Section 83 of The Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, Central Registrar has power to make an order after inquiry to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate, or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such extent, as the Central Registrar may consider just and equitable.  In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel contended that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the present is maintainable in view of the provision contained in Section 3 of the CP, Act 1986,(now Section 100 of the CP, Act2019). It is contended that Section 3 of the CP, Act 1986,(now Section 100 of the CP, Act 2019) provides an additional remedy to a consumer  in addition to any other remedy available under law to a consumer and it is not in derogation of the remedies available to an aggrieved consumer. Reliance has been placed upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs and others, (2004) 1 SCC 305 wherein it has been held that remedy under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the remedies available to aggrieved person. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para no.11 of the said judgment observed as under:-

                        “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”.

                        The Hon’ble Apex Court while delivering the judgment in the aforementioned case had placed reliance on case law titled as Fair Air Engineers(P) Ltd. Vs. N.K.Modi,(1996) 6 SCC 385, wherein it had been held:-

                        It is seen that Section 3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force. It is true, as rightly           contended by Mr. Suri, that the words “in derogation of the provisions of any           other law for the time being in force” would be given proper meaning and effect   and if the complaint is not stayed and the parties are not relegated to the       arbitration, the Act purports to operate in derogation of the provisions of the         Arbitration Act. Prima facie, the contention appears to be plausible but on   construction and conspectus of the provisions of the act we think that the         contention is not well founded.  Parliament is aware of the provisions of the     Arbitration Act and the Contract Act, 1872 and the consequential remedy available   under Section9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. to avail of right of civil action in          a competent court of civil jurisdiction.  Nonetheless, the Act provides the     additional remedy”.

                    Further, dealing with the jurisdiction of the forums under the 1986 Act in         paragraph 16 this  Court has stated, thus:-

          “16.    It would, therefore, be clear that the legislature intended to provide a   remedy in addition to the consentient arbitration which could be enforced  under    the Arbitration  Act or the Civil  action in a suit under the provisions of the Code of         Civil  Procedure. Thereby, as seen, Section 34 of the Act does not  confer  an      automatic  right  nor create an automatic  embargo on the exercise  of the power      by the judicial  authority  under the Act. It is a matter of discretion. Considered   from this perspective, we hold that though the District Forum, State Commission       and National Commission are judicial  authorities, for  the purpose  of Section 34        of the Arbitration  Act, in view of the object  of the Act and by operation of Section    3 thereof, we are of the considered  view that  it would be appropriate  that these     forums created  under the Act are at liberty  to proceed  with the matters  in   accordance  with the provisions of the Act  intends to relieve  the consumers  of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings  or civil  action unless the forums on their        own and on the peculiar  facts and circumstances of a particular case, come to the  onclusion that the appropriate  forum for adjudication of the disputes would be   otherwise those  given in the Act”(emphasis supplied) In para 20, the Supreme    Court, Inter alia, observed as follows:-

          “20…….. Thus, having regard to all aspects  we are of the view that the National   Commission was right  in holding  that the view  taken  by the State  Commission   that the provisions  under the Act relating to reference  of disputes to arbitration     shall  prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable.

                        The learned counsel for the complainant further placed reliance upon the following case laws:-

1. Emmar MGR Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh Review Petition(c ) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 decided on 10.12.2018 (SC) wherein it has been held that the arbitration clause cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer court.
2. Kalawati & Ors. Versus United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. NCDRC, New Delhi bearing revision petition no.823 of 826 of 2001 decided on 26.09.2001 wherein it has been held that Provisions of Co-operative Societies law are no bar to consumer jurisdiction, Provision of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition and not in derogation of any other law. Non-refund of fixed deposit of society members amounts to deficiency in service.
3. Northern Zone Railway employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Charanjiv Lal(NCDRC) New Delhi, bearing  Revision Petition No.2193/2017 decided on 10.10.2017.
4. Raj Kumar Goyal Vs. Malwinder Battu 2017(1) CLT 73, (NCDRC), New Delhi decided on 23.12.2016.
5. Telegraph Traffic employees Vs. B.F.Basthwala(NCDRC) New Delhi 2012(i) CPJ 200 decided on 09.11.2011)

                        The dispute in question is fully covered by the ratio of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and thus, the contentions of the OPs disputing the maintainability of the complaint are rejected.  

9.                 On merits, the OPs have taken different plea in their written statement vis-a vis the written arguments.  The sum of Rs.11,139/- & Rs.11,139/- deposited by the complainant with the Ops vide certificates (Annexure C-1 & C-2), as stated above, is not disputed. The maturity amount of Rs.14,826/- & Rs.14,826/- as well as the date of maturity i.e. 28.04.2021 is also not disputed. In the written statement, the Ops have taken the plea that the complainant had demanded the enhanced rate of interest over the maturity amount and thus, payment was not made to the complainant. In this regard, no evidence has been adduced, much less adequate and credible, by the OPs to substantiate its version that the complainant was insisting upon the payment of interest on the maturity amount. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value. In fact, the OPs were not in a position to make the payments to the complainant qua the certificates (Annexure C-1 & C-2) on account of financial constrain and economic crisis being faced by them as submitted in Para 16 of its written arguments.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs even after the filing of this complaint and during the pendency of this complaint have never shown any interest to release the maturity amount to the complainants. There was no bar or hindrance over the OPs to release the maturity amount to the complainants after getting the formalities completed even during the pendency of the complaint but the OPs instead of refunding the maturity amount preferred to contest the present complaint on flimsy and baseless grounds.

11.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow all the above mentioned complaints with the directions, which are mentioned as under:-  

a.     Complaint no.109 of 2020 titled as Sham Sunder Bagla Vs. Sahara

        In this complaint, the OPs are directed to refund a sum of  Rs.29,652/-qua certificates(Annexure C-1 & C-2) alongwith  interest @9% per annum to the complainant w.e.f the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The Ops are also directed to pay         a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony   and harassment. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of         Rs.5,500/- to the complainant as litigation charges.

b.     Complaint No.108 of 2020 Sham Sunder Bagla Vs. Sahara

        In this complaint, the OPs are directed to refund a total sum of Rs.2,09,340/- qua certificate(Annexure C-1)alongwith interest @9%     per annum to the complainant w.e.f  the    date of filing of this      complaint till its realization. The Ops are also directed to pay a      sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony     and harassment. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of         Rs.5,500/- to the complainant as litigation charges.

c.      Complaint No.111 of 2020 Sham Sunder Bagla Vs. Sahara

        In this complaint, the OPs are directed to refund a total sum of Rs.42401/- qua certificates(Annexure C-1 to C-4) alongwith     interest @9% per annum to the complainant w.e.f the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The Ops are also directed to pay         a sum of Rs.3,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony    and harassment. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of         Rs.5,500/- to the complainant as litigation charges.

12.            The OPs jointly and severally shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

13.            Certified copy of this order be placed in the all the connected complaints  cases bearing no. 108 of 2020, and 111 of 2020.

Announced:21.03.2022

 

Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal

                Member                     Member                    President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

  Satpal                             

President