Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/150

Ranju Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Varul Jain

24 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 150 dated 18.03.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 24.08.2023.

 

Smt. Ranju Devi wife of Sh. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, resident of House No.70, Street No.3, Chand Colony, Haibowal Khurd, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Pariwar, Sahara India Bhawan-01, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through its Authorized Person.
2. M/s. Sahara Credit Corporative Society Limited, Sahara India Pariwar, B-1/57, Guru Nanak Pura, Kailash Chownk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Through its Manager/Authorized Person.                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Vaarul Jain, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant availed a scheme of the opposite parties under SAHARA M. BENEFIT (SCCSL) vide membership No.27031300763 dated 29.06.2013 and as per terms and conditions, the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.1300/- per month for 60 months. The sum assured of the scheme was Rs.98,000/- with date of maturity 29.06.2018. According to the complainant, she had paid an amount of Rs.76,400/- to the opposite parties. As Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh husband of the complainant is a chronic patient of Cancer ailment, as such, after making 55 installments, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to took remaining 5 installments and to disburse the total amount of Rs.98,000/- to her for the treatment of her husband, but the opposite parties dilly delayed the mater on one pretext or the other. The agreed amount along with interest was not disbursed despite her repeated requests and visits to the office of the opposite parties. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 10.04.2019 upon the opposite parties but no reply has been given by the opposite parties. 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 refund of the amount of Rs.98,000/- along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.31,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party 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. The opposite parties 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, the opposite parties could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record copy documents i.e. Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 are the copies of letter dated 07.01.2019 written by the complainant to opposite party No.2, Ex. C3 is the copy of passbook No.3710 bearing account No.27034801031, Ex. C4 is the copy of member ledger statement, Ex. C5 is the legal notice dated 10.04.2019, Ex. C6 and Ex. C7 are the postal receipts, Ex. C8 is the copy of deposit receipt

 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Sheela Kumari, Sector Manager of the opposite parties and closed the evidence.

5.                 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 her 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 a total amount of Rs.76,700/- with the opposite parties as per member ledger/statement Ex. C4. This fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite parties 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. As per copies of passbook of recurring deposit Ex. C3 and member ledger/statement Ex. C4 the complainant deposited Rs.1300/- per month from 29.06.2013 to 28.03.2018, totaling Rs.76,700/- with the opposite parties which they were supposed to pay to the complainant on the maturity. The said amount was not released by the opposite parties despite the repeated requests and visits by the complainant. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite parties are made to refund the total maturity amount of Rs.76,700/- with interest @8% per annum  from 28.03.2018 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 allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.76,700/- with interest @8% per annum  from 28.03.2018  till date of actual payment. The opposite parties 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.

 

 

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.