Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/125

Kailash Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

complaint in person

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 125 dated 28.03.2022.                                                        Date of decision: 31.10.2022. 

 

Kailash Rani wife of Sh. Manmohan Dhingra, R/o. House No.431, B-30, Street No.6, Near Moti Nagar Police Station, Kirti Nagar, Ludhiana. Mob. No.8968896764.

                                                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, Bal Tower, 2^nd Floor, Near Dada Motor, G.T. Delhi Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.  Pincode-141003

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             :         Smt. Kailash Rani in person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Shukla, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of November 2018, an agent of the OPs approached the complainant and on his representation, the complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- in the plan offered by the OPs who issued certificate bearing No.795000890162 and membership No.969876001050. The OPs promised that the complainant would get maturity amount on 25.09.2021. However, after the date of maturity when the complainant approached the OPs for the release of the maturity amount, she was told that the OPs are not in position to make the payment due to financial difficulty. 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 Rs.3,00,000/- 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 nor the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. According to the OPs, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as the OP is a registered cooperative society and the complainant is a member of the society and, therefore, all the disputes are liable to be resolved by getting the dispute referred to the arbitrator as per the arbitration clause 18 of the scheme and as per Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the jurisdiction of the present Commission is barred. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant invested in Star Two scheme. 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. Sunil Singh, 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, it has not been disputed that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the OPs as alleged in para No.3 of the complaint. These facts have not been specifically denied in para No.3 of 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 OPs. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. C2 that the complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- with the OPs on 20.05.2016. It is also not disputed that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has not been refunded to the complainant by the OPs. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited with the OPs with interest @8% per annum  from 20.05.2016 till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

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, 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. 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 the OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 20.05.2016 till date of actual payment. The OPs 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.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:31.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Kailash Rani Vs Sahara Credit                                                 CC/22/125

Present:       Complainant Smt. Kailash Rani in person.

                   Sh. Sandeep Shukla, 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 the OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 20.05.2016 till date of actual payment. The OPs 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.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:31.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.