Punjab

Sangrur

CC/78/2018

Shashi Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Neeraj Kalra

25 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint No. 78

Instituted on:   16.02.2018

                                                                   Decided on:     25.07.2018

 

Shashi Bala wife of Narinder Kumar resident of H.No.586 Bania Street Mehas Gate Nabha Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.   

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     Sahara Credit Cooperatvive Society Ltd. through its Managing Director Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj Luckhnow.

2.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. through its Branch Manager Sunami Gate, Phirni Near Ganga Ram Chawla House, Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Neeraj Kalra, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :             Shri Ashish Grover,Adv.          

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

         

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shashi Bala, 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 she availed the services of the OPs by depositing of an amount of Rs.1500/- per month for five years on 23.08.2012 and maturity date of the RD was 23.08.2017.  After  maturity of the RD the OPs had to repay an amount of Rs.1,16,500/- . After maturity of the RD account, the complainant requested the OPs to release the maturity amount but the OPs did not 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.116500/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity 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 63071200748 on 23.08.2012 had chosen to deposit Rs.1500/-  per month  for five years. It is denied that the complainant had deposited  installments regularly in every month. As per terms and condition of the of clause -5 of the scheme  and is paid according to the above clause and no additional amount or interest is payable. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 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 opened RD account of Rs.1500/- per month for five years on 23.08.2012 and maturity date of the RD was 23.08.2017. After maturity of the RD the OPs had to repay an amount of Rs.1,16,500/-which is evident from the copy of passbook  of RD account Ex.C-3 produced on record .  The complainant's has further stated that after due date of said RD account the complainant requested the OPs to release the maturity amount  but they failed to do so. Ex.C-1 is the sworn affidavit of the complainant to support her 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 been depositing an amount of Rs.1500/- per month for five years  under RD account and maturity value of the said RD is Rs.1,16,500/- . So, we feel that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant the above said maturity amount of the said RD account i.e. Rs.1,16,500/-.

 

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we feel that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,16,500/- as maturity amount of the RD as so admitted by the OPs.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain agony and harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- 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 25, 2018.

 

 

                ( V.K.Gulati)                      ( Sarita Garg)   

                   Member                             Presiding Member