Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/138

Malkit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Manoj Lekhi

13 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  138 dated 29.03.2023.                                                       Date of decision: 13.03.2024. 

Malkit Singh S/o. S. Chhota Singh, R/o. Chhota Singh, Village Bhutta, Ludhiana, Punjab-141206. Mob. No.98782-01345.                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024, Through its Director/M.D/C.E.O.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Kailash Chowk, Ludhiana, Through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Opposite Grand Marian Hotel, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, Through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

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

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Manoj Lekhi, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Sh. Sandeep K. Shukla, Advocate.

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the inducement of officials of the opposite parties of handsome return and timely payment, the complainant availed SAHARA E. SHINE plan of the OPs in the shape of FDR No.351003008822, certificate No.992045374853 bearing account No.69874201601 dated 14.07.2020 for Rs.1,32,617/-. The complainant several times approached and requested the opposite parties to encash the above said FDR but they kept the matter dilly delayed on false pretext. Even the OPs had failed to pay any interest to the complainant. Due to non-encashment of FDR amount by the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment etc. 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 making payment of proceeds of the said FDR and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Notice to opposite party No.1 sent through registered post was received with report of refusal and as such, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.06.2023.

3.                Upon notice, OP2 and OP3 appeared and filed a joint written statement by taking 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. OP2 and OP3 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, OP2 and OP3 could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So OP2 and OP3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 copy of certificate No.351003008822, Ex. C2 is the copy of his Aadhar Card and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the OP2 and OP3 relied upon an affidavit as Ex. RA submitted by Sh. Shiv Ram, authorized representative of OP2 and OP3 and closed the evidence.

6.                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 Co-operative 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 Co-operative 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 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 also not been disputed that the complainant invested amount of Rs.1,32,617/- with the opposite parties as per certificate Ex. C1. This fact has not been specifically denied by OP2 and OP3 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. C1 that the complainant invested Rs.1,32,617/- on 14.07.2012 with the opposite parties which was to be matured on 14.07.2020 with maturity amount of Rs.3,46,396/-. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite parties are made to pay the maturity amount of Rs.3,46,396/- 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 partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.3,46,396/- with interest @8% per annum  from 14.07.2020 till date of actual payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite 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)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.03.2024.

Gobind Ram.