Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/197

Satwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay chawla Adv

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 197 dated 06.04.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 17.03.2023. 

 

Satwant Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, resident of Jalalpur, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                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 F.C. Office, Shop No.14-15, Chandani Complex, Opp. Star Mega Mart, Focal Point Road, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Representative.                                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

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

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.  

For OPs                         :         Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of February 2012, the agent of the opposite parties approached the complainant and allured her to deposit her savings with them representing that the opposite parties is a big company and are providing best financial services in the market and if the complainant chooses to avail their services, she would certainly be able to have a secured financial future for herself and her family members. Acting upon and induced by the repeated assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.5000/- with the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued a certificate No.351003227427 having membership No.60651201258 in  favour of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that the complainant would get interest and will get a maturity amount of Rs.13,060/- on 28.02.2020. On the completion of the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite parties to release the agreed maturity amount along with interest but initially they kept the matter pending on one pretext and another. The agreed amount along with interest was not disbursed despite complainant’s repeated requests and visits to the office of 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.5,000/- along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who filed a joint written statement. The opposite parties took a 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. 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 of Aadhar card as Ex. C1 and also tendered certificate No.351003227427 issued by the opposite parties as Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the opposite parties relied upon a short affidavit as Ex. RA submitted by Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the opposite parties but specifically did not lead any substantive evidence to rebut the claim of the complainant.

5.                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 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.

6.                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. 

7.                Moreover, it has not been disputed that the complainant invested a total amount of Rs.5,000/- with the opposite parties as per certificate Ex. C2. These facts have 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. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. C2 that the complainant invested Rs.5,000/- with the opposite parties on 28.02.2012. It is also not disputed that the maturity amount of Rs.13,060/- to be matured on 28.02.2020 has not been refunded to the complainant by the opposite parties. 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.13,060/- with interest @8% per annum  from 28.02.2020 till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.13,060/- with interest @8% per annum  from 28.02.2020 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.

9.                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:17.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Satwant Kaur  Vs Sahara Credit Coop. Society Limited                  CC/21/197

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the OPs closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.13,060/- with interest @8% per annum  from 28.02.2020 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.

 

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.