Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/559

Jatinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay chawla Adv

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 559 dated 21.12.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 04.10.2022. 

 

Jatinder Kumar son of Sh. Sambhu Singh, C/o. Gill Colony, Near Master Dhaba, Mangarh, Kohara, Ludhiana. M. 97813-34279/Pgalib887gmail.com.                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, 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, 14-15, Chandni Complex, Opp. Star Mega Mart, Focal Point Road, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the 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. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of April 2014, an agent of the OPs approached the complainant and on his representation, the complainant started depositing money in the recurring deposits scheme of the OPs vide account No.60655101292 and membership No.60651401086. In all, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.68,200/- 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.2,70,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

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 and the complainant has suppressed the material facts while filing the complaint. According to the OPs, OP1 is a Multi-State Cooperative Society framed under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the complainant is a member of the society. Thus, there is a relationship of member and the society between the parties and all the disputes are liable to be resolved under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It has further been pleaded that any dispute between the society and the member is liable to be resolved by getting the same referred to the arbitrator for decision and no court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant invested in the scheme of the society under membership No.60651401086.  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 been made.

3.                At the time of filing the complaint, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2  

4.                Along with the written statement, the OPs submitted affidavit as Ex. RA of Sh. Rameshwar Singh, authority/signatory 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.68,200/- with the OPs in five years recurring deposit vide account No.60655101292 and membership No.60651401086, 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.68,200/- is shown to have been deposited with the OPs. The averments made in para No.3 of the complaint have not been denied in the written statement by the OPs. Thus, the factum of deposit of Rs.68,200/- stands admitted. As per the passbook Ex. C2, the complainant started depositing the amount w.e.f. 29.04.2014 and continued depositing till 30.04.2019. 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.68,200/- deposited with the OPs with interest @12% per annum  from 30.04.2019 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. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the OPs has relied upon 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 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that a member cannot pick up a conflict with Co-operative Society under the Consumer Protection Act as the alternative remedy available under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the dispute arising among committee of Members of Society in respect of the matter relating to affairs of Society, can be proceeded under Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the concerned District Court. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that the consumer jurisdiction is barred where matter is covered under the Cooperative Society Act and, therefore, the order passed by the Consumer Forum was held to be a nullity. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 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 has held that whenever there is a dispute between the member and the society, then the same is to be settled by the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and not by any court.

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 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.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.68,200/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from 30.04.2019 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite costs and 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:04.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Jatinder Kumar Vs Sahara Credit                          CC/21/559

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Reply to application for dismissal of the complaint not filed. Heard. Since the procedure adopted under The Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature, the application for dismissal of the complaint is disposed of with an observation that the objections taken in the application have already been taken in the written statement and the same shall be adjudicated upon in the main order.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.68,200/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from 30.04.2019 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite costs and 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:04.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.