Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/190

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajesh Kumar

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 190 dated 21.09.2020.                                                       Date of decision: 17.03.2023. 

 

Rajinder Kumar S/o. Late Sh. Ram Bodh Yadav, B-34/2173, St. No.2, Chander Nagar, Near Mata Chitpurni Mandir, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited SF. 23-24, Sahil Plaza, 4^th Floor, Model Town Extension, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                 …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 07.08.2012, the complainant had booked 32.00 gms gold in the other sister concern of opposite party namely Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited under gold scheme and timely paid all the installments. Maturity date was 07.07.2017 having maturity value of Rs.91,948/-. After the maturity of the scheme, the complainant asked the opposite party for his total maturity amount and also visited office of opposite party so many times but did not receive the maturity amount. The complainant further submitted that after passing of seven months, the staff of opposite party allured the complainant to invest the amount in other scheme upon which he invested the amount in ‘Sahara Special M.I.S. (Monthly Income Scheme)’ of the opposite party on 09.01.2018 having maturity date 09.07.2019 and monthly interest was Rs.843/- @ 11% per annum to be paid by the opposite party at the time of the maturity. The complainant further submitted that he again approached the opposite party to pay the maturity amount but with no result. Even legal notices dated 18.02.2020 and 10.08.2020 were issued upon the opposite party but no response was received to the said legal notices. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay the maturity amount along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party 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 complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and suppression of material facts. 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 party 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 submit application form for the demand of payment along with original certificate and other documents required by the society for verification. The members are also required to be present personally at the office of society with Identity proof to get the payment and to sign discharge voucher but the complainant has failed to comply these provisions.

                   On merits, the opposite party could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. The opposite party denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainant filed replication to reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his 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.797000246403, Ex. C2 is the legal notice dated 18.02.2020, Ex. C3 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

5.                The opposite party failed to conclude its evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities and as such, evidence of the opposite party closed by order vide order of even date.

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 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 Co-operative 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.91,948/- with the opposite parties as per certificate Ex. C1. 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. C1 that the complainant invested Rs.91,948/- with the opposite party on 09.07.2018. It is also not disputed that the maturity amount of Rs.91,948/- to be matured on 09.07.2019 along with monthly interest amount of Rs.843/- 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.91,948/- with interest @11% per annum  from 09.07.2018 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.91,948/- with interest @11% per annum  from 09.07.2018  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.

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.

Rajinder Kumar  Vs Sahara Credit Coop. Society Limited               CC/20/190

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OP.

 

                   No evidence of the OPs is present despite grant of last chance. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the OPs to conclude evidence including last chance but they failed to produce any evidence and as such, evidence of the OPs is closed by order. 

                   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.91,948/- with interest @11% per annum  from 09.07.2018 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.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.