Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/248

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay Chawla

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 248 dated 04.05.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 03.11.2022. 

 

Baldev Singh son of Mukand Singh, resident of Kohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its registered Office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lukhnow, Uttar Pradesh-226024 through its Chairman/President/Authorized representative.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its authorized centre at Sahara India Pariwar, F.C. Office, Shop No.14-15, Chandni Complex, Opp. Star Mega Mat, Focal Point Road, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on in the month of June 2014, an agent of the OPs to invest his savings with the OPs and on his allurement,  the complainant started depositing money in the recurring deposit scheme of the OPs vide account No.60655101670 and membership No.60651401431. In all, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.54,000/- with the OPs. However, subsequently, the amount was not refunded to the complainant though the complainant approached the OPs many times for the refund of the invested amount. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund a sum of Rs.54,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement, it has been, inter alia, pleaded by the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer as the OPs are society registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant bearing a member is not covered under the definition of consumer. Moreover, as per the clause 13 of the scheme, all the disputes are subject to arbitration as per the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002. Thus, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

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

4.                With the written statement, the OPs submitted affidavit of Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the OPs.

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

6.                In this case, the complainant claims to have deposited/invested a sum of Rs.54,000/- with the OPs in six years recurring deposit vide account No.60655101670 and membership No.60651401431, as stated in para No.3 of the complaint. The complainant has further placed on record the copy of the passbook in which the amount of Rs.54,000/- is shown to have been deposited with the OPs. The averments made in para No.3 of the complaint have not been controverted. Thus, the factum of deposit of Rs.54,000/- stands proved. As per the passbook Ex. C2, the complainant started depositing the amount w.e.f. 30.06.2014 and continued depositing till 29.09.2018. Admittedly, no amount has been returned to the complainant. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to refund the amount of Rs.54,000/- deposited with the OPs with interest @12% per annum  from 30.06.2014 till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 

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, he is required to get his 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 the OPs but have found the same to be untenable. 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 a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.54,000/- deposited with the OPs with interest @12% per annum  from 30.06.2014 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              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:03.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Baldev Singh Vs Sahara Credit                                                CC/21/248

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.54,000/- deposited with the OPs with interest @12% per annum  from 30.06.2014 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 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:03.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.