Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/309

Satya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sharwan Sehgal

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 309 dated 27.07.2023.                              Date of decision: 02.08.2024. 

 

Shatya Devi @ Satya Devi Aged about 46 years wife of Shri Ganesh Mukhiya @ Ganesh Sahni, Resident of Mundian Khurd, Ludhiana.     

Aadhar Card No.2398 5112 7326.

Mobile No.98155-41376.                                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its Director.

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

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Ms. Shruti Sethi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the agent of OPs allured the complainant to deposit the money with the OPs and as such, the complainant opted for recurring deposit scheme of the OPs. The complainant stated that she started depositing money in the scheme from 31.07.2015 to be ended on 31.07.2021 vide account no.43725600563 and till date she deposited Rs.15,000/- with the OPs. The complainant further stated that on completion of the maturity period, she approached the opposite parties to release the agreed maturity amount but they kept the matter prolonged on one pretext and another and finally failed to pay the promised amount to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and further prayed for paying the maturity amount along with interest @18% per annum and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment etc.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties 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. 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 Ex. C1 copy of passbook with Punjab National Bank, Ex. C2 is the copy of RD passbook and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the opposite parties relied upon affidavit as Ex. RA submitted by Sh. Shiv Ram, authorized representative 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 Chembethi 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 they 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 deposited a total amount of Rs.15,000/- with the opposite parties as per passbook Ex. C2. 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. Even otherwise, it is evident from the passbook Ex. C2 that the complainant started investing money from 31.07.2015 and had deposited a total sum of Rs.15,000/- till 30.05.2016 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, it would be just and proper if the opposite parties are directed to pay  Rs.15,000/- to the complainant  along with interest @8% per annum from 31.07.2015 till date of actual payment along with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay  Rs.15,000/- to the complainant  along with interest @8% per annum from 31.07.2015 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)                                (Sanjeev Batra) 

Member                                             President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.08.2024.

Gobind Ram.