Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/164

Dev Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay chawla Adv

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 164 dated 24.03.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 04.08.2023. 

 

Dev Lal Shah son of Sh. Sant Lal, resident of Village Jandiali, Ludhiana.                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its registered Office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lakhnow, Uttar Pradesh-226024.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its authorized centre at Sahara India Pariwar F.C. Office, 4372, Ground Floor, Swarn Complex, Gaispur Road, Lohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                 …..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. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of January 2019, the agent of the opposite parties approached the complainant and allured him to deposit his savings with them representing that the opposite parties is a big company and are providing best financial services in the market and if the complainant chooses to avail their services, he would certainly be able to have a secured financial future for himself and his family members. Acting upon and induced by the repeated assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- with the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued a certificate No.925007733101 bearing membership No.43721900015 in  favour of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that the complainant would get interest @11% per annum and will get a maturity amount of Rs.1,36,071/- on 14.07.2020. 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. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and further prayed for refund of the amount along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who 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 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 copy of adhar card as Ex. C1 and also tendered certificate No.925007733101 issued by the opposite parties as Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the opposite parties relied upon a short affidavit as Ex. RA submitted by Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the opposite parties but specifically did not lead any substantive evidence to rebut the claim of the complainant.

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 of 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.       Anjana Abraham Vs 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. 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 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 regard, a reference can also be made 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 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 Cooperative 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 lead any evidence in this regard. The act and conduct of the opposite parties first in inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest his hard earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency of 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 also not been disputed that the complainant invested a total amount of Rs.1,36,071/- with the opposite parties as per certificates Ex. C2. This fact has 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. C2 that the complainant invested Rs.1,36,071/- with the opposite parties on 14.07.2020.  However, amount of maturity and date of maturity is not printed on Ex. C2. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite parties are made to refund the total maturity amount of Rs.1,36,071/- with interest @8% per annum  from 14.07.2020 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 maturity amount of Rs.1,36,071/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 14.07.2020 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:04.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Dev Lal Shah Vs Sahara Credit Coop. Society Limited             CC/21/164

 

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the OPs closed evidence by stating that written statement along with affidavit and documents be read as evidence of the OPs.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,36,071/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 14.07.2020 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:04.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.