Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/103

Shilpa Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shubham Malhotra Adv

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 103 dated 17.03.2022.                                                       Date of decision: 03.04.2023. 

 

Shilpa Kapoor wife of Shri Tejinder Nath Kapoor, earlier resident of House No.219, Backside Greenland School, Civil City, Bishan Enclave, Ludhiana at present of House No.B-34-2200/138-A, Backside Greenland School, Civil City, Bishan Enclave, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226-024 through its Manager.
2. The Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registered Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226-024
3. The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its branch at B-1/367, Guru Nanakpura, Opposite Petrol Pump, Near Kailash Chowki, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.                                                                                                                    …..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. Shubham Malhotra, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of October 2012 the representative of the opposite parties approached the complainant and allured her for investment with their concern in Monthly Income Scheme by representing that she would have to invest Rs.1,52,000/- in lump sum in monthly Income Scheme for 10 years and she would get Rs.1328/- per month and after a period of 10 years, she would get Rs.1,52,000/- i.e. equivalent to the deposited amount. According to the complainant, she invested lump sum amount of Rs.1,52,000/- in the Monthly Income Scheme for a period of 10 years with the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued 8 certificates which are reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Account No.	Certificate No.	Receipt No.	Amount deposited	Period	Interest on deposited amount.
1.	27034203413	821000202801	80239964795	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
2.	27034203443	821000202802	80239964875	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
3.	27034203444	821000202803	80239964876	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
4.	27034203445	821000202804	80239964877	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
5.	27034203446	821000202805	80239964878	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
6.	27034203447	821000202806	80239964879	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
7.	27034203448	821000202807	80239964880	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-
8.	27034203449	821000202808	80239964881	Rs.19000/-	10 years	Rs.166/-

 

The complainant further stated that the opposite parties continued making payment of total sum of Rs.1328/- every month till 15.03.2018. Thereafter, on 10.09.2018, when the complainant approached opposite parties for receiving payment of six months i.e. Rs.7968/-, the opposite parties made payment of Rs.3320/- leaving a balance of Rs.4648/-.The complainant approached the opposite parties many times for payment of Rs.4648/- and Rs.1328/- per month but they dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. The opposite parties did not make payment after 10.09.2018.  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.1,52,000/- along with interest, Rs.1328/- per month after 10.09.2018 till date  and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and 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. The opposite parties further alleged that for getting the payment, member is bound to surrender the original passbook and demand application of the maturity amount and after receiving the same, society shall pay the maturity amount after 30 to 35 days but the complainant has failed to comply these provisions.

                   On merits, the opposite parties could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. The opposite parties denied any deficiency in service on their part and also 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 documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202801, Ex. C2 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C3 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202802, Ex. C4 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C5 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202803, Ex. C6 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C7 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202804, Ex. C8 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C9 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202805, Ex. C10 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C11 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202806, Ex. C12 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C13 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202807, Ex. C14 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme, Ex. C15 is the copy of certificate No. 821000202808, Ex. C16 is the copy of statement of Sahara. K money scheme and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Randhir Singh, authorized signatory of opposite  party No.2 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement produced on record by both the parties.  

6.                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 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 Co-operative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

7.                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. 

8.                Moreover, it has not been disputed that the complainant invested a total amount of Rs.1,52,000/- with the opposite parties i.e. Rs.19,000/- each with 8 certificates Ex. C1, Ex. C3, Ex. C5, Ex. C7, Ex. C9, Ex. C11, Ex. C13 and Ex. C16. 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. Ex. C1, Ex. C3, Ex. C5, Ex. C7, Ex. C9, Ex. C11, Ex. C13 and Ex. C16 that the complainant invested a total sum of Rs.1,52,000/- with the opposite party on 01.10.2022 for a period of 120 months. It is also not disputed that the total maturity amount of Rs.1,52,000/-to be paid after 120 months along with monthly interest amount of Rs.166/- each i.e. a total sum of Rs.1328/- has not been refunded to the complainant by the opposite parties since 10.09.2018.  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.1,52,000/- and amount of Rs.1328/- per month from 10.09.2018 to the complainant 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.1,52,000/- and also to pay amount of Rs.1328/- per month from 10.09.2018 till September 2022 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amounts from the date of order 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:03.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Shilpa Kapoor  Vs Sahara Credit Coop. Society Limited                 CC/22/103

Present:       Sh. Shubham Malhotra, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   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.1,52,000/- and also to pay amount of Rs.1328/- per month from 10.09.2018 till September 2022 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amounts from the date of order 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:03.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.