Haryana

Ambala

CC/251/2020

Nitin Mehndiratta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Udai Singh Chauhan

07 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case No.:  251 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :    23.10.2020.

                                                          Date of decision    :    07.09.2022.

 

Nitin Mehndiratta aged about 43 years son of Shri Amar Nath resident of H.No.21-A Jain Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.       Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its Regd office Sahara   India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala      Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (UP) through its Managing Director. 

2.       Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, through its Branch Manager,    having local office at Sahara India Parivar, 5744-46, 1^st Floor, Nicholson   Road, above Corporation Bank (now Union Bank), Ambala Cantt.-   133001.

 

                                                                                      ..…. Opposite Parties.

                            

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
2. To pay/return the maturity amount of Rs.1,44,000/-, to the complainant beside the interest on delayed payment till the decision of the complaint.  
3. To pay Rs.25,000/-, as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.         

 

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the OPs No.1 and 2 through their authorized person allured and induced the complainant to invest money in their scheme namely “Sahara C Anokha”. As allured by the OPs, complainant had initially started depositing an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month with the hope that he would get good returns on his investment. Soon after receiving the first instalment the OP No.1 had opened an account bearing number 23985601887 and also issued the passbook on 30.11.2015. Complainant kept depositing the money as per the scheme every month till 31/10/2017. As per the account statement, complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs.1,44,000/-. Although the scheme required the complainant to deposit his money every month for a continuous period of 4 years but he had stopped depositing the money after 31.07.2010 because there were rumours pertaining to some dispute of the company regarding the matured amount. On further enquiry from the office, complainant came to know that there were some ongoing disputes where the company had failed to return the matured amount. Over the fear of his savings the complainant had asked the OP to return his money but they refused to do so. Although they had given the leverage to the complainant that if he wishes to discontinue depositing the money then he could do so. OPs told that they were bound by the clauses of the scheme which mandated the return of the invested money only after the specified time period which in this case was 4 years. As per the scheme the complainant’s amount got matured on 30.11.2019 and on 01.12.2019, he approached the OPs to get the maturity amount but they did not pay him the said amount.  Even after multiple requests made by the complainant the OPs did not pay the maturity amount.  Hence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited is duly registered under “Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002” and complainant is the member of the said society. Complainant decided to become the member of the Society to get benefits of the said scheme and he became the member, after reading and signing the bye laws of the society, mentioned on the backside of application form. Thus, relation between the complainant and the OPs is of member and society. The bye laws of the society, clearly indicates that any dispute between the society and its member/account holder should be decided by the arbitrator as per Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002. It is further stated that as per Section 25(5) of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, it shall be the duty of every member of the Multi State Co-operative Society, to promote and protect the interests and objects of the society. As per Section 55 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, a Multi State Co-operative Society, shall have a charge on the share or contribution or interest in the capital and on the deposits of a member or past or deceased member and on any dividend, bonus or profits payable to a member or past member or the estate of a deceased member to the society and may set-off any sum credited or payable to a member or past member or the estate of deceased member in or towards payment of any such debt. OPs are always ready to make the payment as per the condition of the scheme but due to enhance demand of interest on maturity amount, the payment could not be made to the complainant at that time. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has made a statement that written version of OPs be read as evidence of OPs and closed the evidence of OPs.   

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs, vehementally argued that OPs is a society duly registered under Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is the member of the society, as such, for any dispute between the society and the member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of M/s Anjana Abrahim Chembethil Versus Managing Director, The Kothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2013) 4 CPJ 333 (NC) and also on the judgment dated 10.05.2021, passed by Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala in the case of Smt. Paramita Deb Versus The Sector Head, Agartala City Sector Office, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited.

7.                  On the contrary, the learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the dispute is with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the OPs for a particular period and the refund of the same alongwith benefits. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of service as defined in the Act. There is element of deficiency in service due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the OPs has been hired by the complainant by depositing abovesaid amount with them, thus, Consumer Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, where consumer comes to the Commission regarding deficiency in service. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, rendered on 11.12.2003, in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1998, Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and other and rendered on 24.03.2013, in Civil Appeal no.64 of 2010, Virender Jain Versus Alaknanda Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited and others. He further submitted that the complainant deposited in total a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-, under the scheme, which got matured on 30.11.2019, as such, OPs were liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest. However, OPs did not pay his said amount.

 8.                The plea of the complainant is that the OPs refused to pay the amount deposited by him after maturity and by doing so, they have committed deficiency in service, as such, he filed the present complaint before this Hon’ble Commission. The stand of the OPs is that complaint is not maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act as the relation between the complainant and OPs is of member and society. However, we do not find any merits in this submission of the OPs because it is not a dispute between the member and the co-operative society regarding its governance; in fact, it is a dispute with regard to non-payment of the maturity amount, by the OPs, to the complainant. As such, there is element of deficiency in service, due to non-performance of the contract whereby service of the OPs has been hired by the complainant by depositing the aforesaid amount with them. It may be stated here that in the case of Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Limited Versus Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., decided on 11.01.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the members of the appellant society are well within their rights as ‘Consumer’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.  The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of in Varinder Jain Versus Alaknand Co-Operative (Supra) has held that disputes between the members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Commission. Moreover, as per Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the remedy before Consumer Commission is an addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of any other law for the time being in force. The mere fact that some other remedy has been provided, to an aggrieved under some other law, would not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer commission in view of Section 100 of the CP Act, 2019 in respect of the matter regarding deficiency vis. a vis. adoption of unfair trade practice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Ded) through L.R. & Ors., (Supra) has held that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition and not in derogation to the remedy under other Acts, unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction.  Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the Members and the Management of the Society under the Co-operative Societies Act, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Fora under the CP Act. With regard to the plea of the opposite parties that the dispute between the parties is liable to be referred to the arbitrator, as per Clause 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002. It may be stated here that Section 84 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 deals with the dispute regarding disciplinary actions taken by multi state co-operative society against its paid employees. As such, the applicants/OPs cannot take shelter under Section 84 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. It needs to be mentioned here that larger bench of Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 13.07.2017, in CC No. 701 of 2015, titled as Aftab Singh Versus  EMAAR MGF Land limited and Anr. has held that in the kind of agreement between the complainant and the builders cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer Fora, notwithstanding with the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The Civil appeal filed by the M/s EMAAR MGF Land limited, against the order dated 13.07.2017, of the Hon’ble National Commission, in the above referred case, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 13.02.2018. Review Petition filed against the order dated 13.02.2018, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.12.2018. The principle of laws in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and as such it is held that existence of an Arbitration Clause in any agreement is not a bar to resolve the present dispute by this Commission and the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs is maintainable under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

9.                From the perusal of Sahara Credit Cooperative Party/Member Ledger, Annexure C-1, it is evident that on 30.11.2015,  complainant opened an account, with the OPs, having Membership No.23981501208,  for the tenure of 48 months for deposit of Rs.6,000/- monthly, having maturity date 30.11.2019. It is not the case of the OPs that the said document was not issued by them.  From the said document it is quite clear that complainant did not pay the entire instalments as agreed upon. However, no such document has been placed on record by the OPs to show that complainant is not entitled to get the amount, which he deposited with them under the Scheme. No document has been placed on record regarding what was the rate of interest under the scheme. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that OPs are liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,44,000/-, to the complainant, alongwith prevailing rate of interest. It may be stated here that complainant is not entitled to get any compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him because he himself was at fault by not depositing all the installments as agreed upon.

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

                   (i)      To pay Rs.1,44,000/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest                       @ 4% per annum, w.e.f 23.10.2020, i.e the date of filing of                            the complaint,  till its realisation.

                   (ii)     To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.  

Announced on :07.09.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                               Member                          President