Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/440

Bansi Lal Maurya - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Parmesh Kumar

02 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 440 dated 22.09.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 02.05.2023. 

 

Bansi Lal Maurya S/o. Sumeshwar Parsad, R/o. House No.B33/959, Street No.4, Near Water Tubewell Ashok Nagar C, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, through its authorized signatory/Managing Directors. Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala, Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited through its  through Branch Manager B-1/367, Guru Nanakpura, Opposite Petrol Pump, Near Kailash Cinema Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Parmesh Kumar, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was approached by opposite party No.1 through its branch office of opposite party No.2 with gorgeous and enticing scheme of their company by alluring that their company is providing high returns under its fixed deposit schemes.  Acting upon and induced by the repeated assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited the amount in the shape of FDRs under the plan “Sahara A Select” and the opposite parties issued certificate No.925001780529, 925001780530, 925001780531, 925001780532, 925001780502, 925001780568, 925001780569, 925001780570, 925001780571, 925001780572, 925001780573, 925001780579, 925001780580, 925001780581, 925001780575, 925001780576, 925001780577, 925001780578 each for 18 months period having membership No.27031600557. The total maturity amount of the FDRs is Rs.3,20,988/-. On the completion of the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite parties to release the agreed maturity amount along with interest but initially they kept the matter pending on one pretext and another. The agreed amount along with interest was not disbursed despite complainant’s repeated requests and visits to the office of the opposite parties. Even legal notice dated 10.08.2021 was issued upon the opposite parties but no positive response was received. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and further prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.3,20,988/-  along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a joint written statement. The opposite parties took a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties is a society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” (hereinafter called as Act) and the complainant being a member of the society cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties also further took the objection that there exists an Arbitration clause as contemplated in the Section 84 of the said Act, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Arbitrator. On merits, the opposite parties could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. A1 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780579, Ex. A2 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780580, Ex. A3 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780581, Ex. A4 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780575, Ex. A5 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780576, Ex. A6 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780577, Ex. A7 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780578, Ex. A8 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780529, Ex. A9 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780530, Ex. A10 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780531, Ex. A11 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780532, Ex. A12 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780502, Ex. A13 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780568, Ex. A14 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780569, Ex. A15 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780570, Ex. A16 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780571, Ex. A17 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780572, Ex. A18 is the copy of certificate No. 925001780573, Ex. A19 to Ex. A36 are the copies of receipts issued by the opposite parties, Ex. A37 is the legal notice, Ex. A38 and Ex. A39 are the postal receipts, Ex. A44 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant  and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Sheela Kumari, Manager of opposite party No.2 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and also perused and examined the record and following points of determination arises there from:-

(i) Whether the complainant being the member of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited was required to avail the remedy provided under this Act instead of filing the present complaint?

(ii) Whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so, its effect?

6.                The counsel for the opposite parties had vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by availing remedy under the Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court including that of this Commission. In support of the arguments, he relied upon the following citations:-

a.       M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs The Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013

b.       2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another

c.       1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase

d.       Smt. Paramita Deb Vs The Sector Head in Case No.A.2.2021 decided on 10.05.2021 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contends that the existence of alternative relief does not bar the complainant to avail remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                We have considered the contentions of the counsel for both the parties and are of the opinion that there is a force in the contentions of the counsel for the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act being a special enactment created an additional remedy in favour of the consumers to raise consumer disputes before the Consumer Commissions constituted under this Act. Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of this act shall be in addition to and not in  derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In this regard, a reference can be made the 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 Co-operative 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 regard, a reference can also be made to the law laid down in decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held that the remedy available under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for redressal of disputes are in addition to the remedy available under the Co-operative Societies Act and Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act cannot stand in the way of filing a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Co-operative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                It was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to honour the contractual obligation within the stipulated time. Even the opposite parties have not specifically denied the investment made by the complainant with them nor they lead any evidence in this regard. The act and conduct of the opposite parties firstly inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest his hard earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency in service. Rather it appears that the opposite parties had dishonest intentions to cheat since the inception of the dealing between the parties. 

10.              Moreover, it has not been disputed that the complainant invested a total amount of Rs.2,76,000/- with the opposite parties as per certificates Ex. A1 to Ex. A18. These facts have not been specifically denied by the opposite parties in the written statement. It is settled that if the fact is not specifically denied in the written statement it deemed to be admitted by the opposite parties. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. A1 to Ex. A7 that the complainant invested Rs.15000/- each on 30.09.2016, as per certificate Ex. A8 to Ex. A8 to Ex.  A11, the complainant invested Rs.15,000/- each on 20.08.2016, as per certificate Ex. A12 and Ex. A13, the complainant invested Rs.10,000/- on 14.07.2016 and Rs.16,000/- on 30.06.2016 respectively and as per certificate Ex. A14 to Ex. A18, the complainant invested Rs.17,000/- each on 30.06.2016 with the opposite parties. It is also not disputed that the total deposited amount of Rs.2,76,000/- has not been refunded to the complainant by the opposite parties. As per certificate Ex. A1 to Ex. A11 the maturity amount was Rs.17445/- each to be matured on 20.02.2018, as per certificate Ex. A12 and Ex. A13 the maturity amount was Rs.11630/- to be matured on 14.01.2018 and Rs.18,608/- 30.12.2017 respectively and as per certificate Ex. A14 to Ex. A18 the maturity amount was Rs.19,771/- each to be matured on 30.12.2017. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite parties are made to pay the respective maturity amounts of the certificates Ex. A1 to Ex. A18 along with interest @8% per annum  from their respective maturity dates till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the respective maturity amounts of the certificates Ex. A1 to Ex. A18 along with interest @8% per annum  from their respective maturity dates till date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.05.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Bansi Lal  Vs Sahara Credit Coop. Society Limited                  CC/21/440

 

Present:       Sh. Parmesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Fie taken up today as on 01.05.2023 was declared holiday on account of May day/Labour Day.

                   Learned counsel for the opposite parties also closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA.               

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the respective maturity amounts of the certificates Ex. A1 to Ex. A18 along with interest @8% per annum  from their respective maturity dates till date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.05.2023.

Gobind Ram.