Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/92

Arshdeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Singh Adv

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 92 dated 22.06.2020.                                                Date of decision: 12.09.2022. 

 

Arshdeep Kaur aged about 25 years Daughter of Mewa Singh, Resident of 206, V.P.O. Mansuran, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024 Through its Authorized Representative/Manager.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Office at Sahil Palaza, 4^th Floor, Dugri Road, Near Libra Bus Service, Ludhiana-141003 through its Authorized Representative/Manager.
3. Shiv Ram Gupta agent of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Ground Floor, Swaran Complex, Giaspura Road, Surjit Nagar, Lohara, Distt. Ludhiana-141010.                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sarabdeep Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 03.03.2018, she deposited Rs.3,55,878/- as fixed deposits with OP1 through its agent i.e. OP3. The payable interest on the said amount was @11% per annum for the period of 18 months. OPs issued a certificate No.787 000489526 having maturity amount of Rs.4,16,733/- with date of maturity as 03.09.2019. After the date of maturity, the complainant has been regularly visiting the OPs for encashment of the maturity amount of Rs.4,16,733/- but the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  Later on, after six months of the date of maturity when the complainant visited the office of the OPs, the OPs asked the complainant to renew the fixed deposit. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the maturity amount of Rs.4,16,733/- and further to pay R.19,575/- for the delayed period along with interest and the OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant is a consumer. According to the OPs, the relation between the complainant and the OPs is that of member and society. According to the OPs, in case of dispute between the member and the society, as per the provisions Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. Even otherwise, if being a member of the society, the complainant has any grievance, his remedy is to get the dispute referred to the arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement clause 10 of the scheme. On merits, it has been claimed by the OPs that the complainant herself approached the OPs in their office and was interested in becoming a member for participating in the schemes of the society to get the benefit. Therefore, the complainant became a member of the society and availed membership No.787000489526. She had to deposit the payment for 18 months and before opting the scheme, she duly understood the terms and conditions of the scheme and signed on the declaration of the application form after admitting the same as correct. It has further been denied if there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                The Ops did not formally tender any evidence. However, affidavit of Sh. Shiv Kumar Gupta has been placed on file along with the written statement.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.                It has been categorically stated by the complainant in para No.1 of the complaint that she invested Rs.3,55,878/- with the OPs who issued certificate, copy of which are Ex. C1. It has also been claimed that when the complainant approached the OPs after the date of maturity on 03.09.2019, they refused to make the payment. These facts have not been controverted in the written statement by the OPs nor it has been specifically denied that the complainant invested Rs.3,55,878/- with the OPs.  It is well settled that the facts which are not specifically disputed or controverted are deemed to have been admitted as correct. Therefore, it stands  proved that the OP1 and OP2 were liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.4,16,733/- to the complainant.

7.                The counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as the complainant is only a member of the OP Society and being a member, she is required to get her grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. 

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for OPs but have found the same to be not tenable. In this regard, a reference can be made to law laid down in Mandatai Sambha Ji Pawar and another Vs State of Maharashtra passed in Writ Petition No.117 of 2011 decided on 03.05.2011 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court whereby it has been held that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and other authorities under Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In this case, there is also a reference to the law laid down the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held likewise? Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                As regards the objection that there was an arbitration agreement and the complainant is liable to get his claim referred to an arbitrator as per terms and conditions of the arbitration clause, even this  contentions raised by the OPs in the written statement is not tenable considering the fact that it is a settled proposition of law that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the other remedy available with the complainant. Therefore, even if the complainant did not invoke the arbitration clause, the complainant does not stand precluded for approaching this Commission under Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper if OP1 and OP2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,16,733/- along with interest @8% per annum from 03.09.2019 till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that OP1 and OP2 shall pay the amount of Rs.4,16,733/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 03.09.2019  till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complaint as against OP3 is, however, dismissed as he is just an agent of OP1 and OP2. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Arshdeep Kaur  Vs Sahara Credit Coop.                                  CC/20/92

Present:       Sh. Sarabdeep Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that OP1 and OP2 shall pay the amount of Rs.4,16,733/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 03.09.2019  till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complaint as against OP3 is, however, dismissed as he is just an agent of OP1 and OP2. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.