Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/174

Ramesh Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gurpreet Singh Adv.

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 174 dated 09.09.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 04.10.2022. 

 

Ramesh Rani wife of Sh. Avtar Singh, r/o. 535/8, Near Govt. School, Sunet, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered office Sahara India Bhawan-1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
2. Sahara India Parivar Branch Office Main Road, Gagandeep Colony, St. No.2, Kailash Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana through its Authorized person/Managing Director.
3. Sahil Kumar @ Hari son of Kailash, r/o.216-L, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana (Agent of the company)                                                                                                                                                     …..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. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant opened recurring account No.60647200261 on 14.03.2018 whereby she deposited/invested Rs.150/- each on daily basis. The date of maturity of the scheme was 14.03.2020. The complainant deposited Rs.62,100/- up to 30.04.2019 but she could not deposit the subsequent installments. After the date of maturity of the scheme, the complainant approached the OPs for the refund of the invested amount of Rs.62,100/- with interest but the OPs kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.  This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 03.07.2020 but despite that the payment was not made. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be made to refund the amount of Rs.62,100/- along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.12.2020.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by the OP2 and OP3. In the written statement filed by the OP2 and OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant herself admittedly committed default in payment of Rs.150/- per day and, therefore, is not entitled to get any amount. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer as the OPs are a society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The complainant is a member of the society and, therefore, is not covered under the definition of consumer besides all the disputes between the member and the society are liable to be resolved as per arbitration clause and as per the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 by referring the dispute to the Registrar under the said Act. On merits, it has, however, been admitted that the complainant had invested the payment of Rs.150/- per day and she deposited total amount of Rs.62,100/-. 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.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence.   

5.                Along with the written statement, the OP2 and OP3 submitted affidavit as Ex. RA of Sh. Nurul Haque, authorized representative of the OP2.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

7.                In this case, it has not been disputed that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.62,100/- with the OPs up to 30.04.2019. The said amount has not been returned to the complainant. In the written statement also, the OPs have not disputed the deposit of Rs.62,100/- with them though it has been claimed that the complainant is not entitled for any amount as the complainant admittedly committed a default in not paying the installments up to 14.03.2020.  However, on this ground, the OPs cannot be allowed to forfeit the entire amount invested with them. In our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP1 and OP2 are made to refund the amount of Rs.62,100/- deposited with OP1 and OP2 with interest @8% per annum  from 30.04.2019 till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 

8.                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.

9.                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.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that OP1and OP2 shall pay the amount of Rs.62,100/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 30.04.2019 till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the complaint as against OP3 is dismissed as he is only an agent of OP1 and OP2. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              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.

 

 

 

Ramesh Rani Vs Sahara Credit                                       CC/20/174

Present:       Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OP2 and OP3.

                   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 OP1and OP2 shall pay the amount of Rs.62,100/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 30.04.2019 till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the complaint as against OP3 is dismissed as he is only an agent of OP1 and OP2. 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.