Haryana

Ambala

CC/254/2021

Jaswinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rupinder Singh

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	254 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	16.08.2021
Date of decision	:	16.01.2023

 

Jaswinder Pal S/o Gulzar Singh R/o #377, Mohri, Samalkhi, Distt.Kurukshtera.

IInd address:- Jassi Enterprises at Shop no.3 Karan Puri behind B.D. Flour Mill Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through its Director/Manager.
2. Sahara Authorized Center #5744-5746, Sehgal Goldan, Transport Building, Ambala Cantt. through its Partner/Manager
3. Surjit Singh S/o not known R/o # 134,Ram Kishan Colony, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Rupinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                     Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the maturity amount of Rs.21,724/- and Rs.78,656/- total Rs.1,00,380/- to the complainant as maturity amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the realization of the amount and Rs.10,000/- as legal expenditure:
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for harassment, torture and mental agony.
382.  

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is a permanent R/o #377, Mohri, Samalkhi, Distt.Kurukshtera and doing the scrap business in the name and style of Jassi Enterprises at Shop no.3 Karan Puri behind B.D. Flour Mill Ambala Cantt. In the year 2013, OP No.3 as agent of OPs No.1 and 2 came to at his shop and allured the complainant to open an account in Sahara M.Benefit Scheme in the society of OP No.1 and told to complainant that if he opens an account with OP No.1, he will get good benefits in the Scheme/Policies launched by the OPs. On this allurement the complainant got opened account no. 23984800194 and the above OPs issued the membership no.23981300153 in the name of complainant. In the month of April, 2016 the OPs opened another account under Sahara Minor-12 Months SCCSL vide account no.23985602003 and membership no. 23981500735 was issued to complainant and complainant deposited Rs.6,400/- with the OPs in the said account. In the month of December, 2018, OP No.3 came to the shop of complainant and allured complainant to take Sahara Special Fix Scheme/Policy. He further allured that under this special scheme, the principal amount is to be deposited one time and he will get interest @ 11% p.a. and gave the assurance to complainant that after maturity he would get good amount in return and that if he takes the said policy for 18 months, he will get further good return. Enticed by the commitments of OP No.3, the complainant purchased two schemes/policies for the period of 18 months and deposited Rs.18,552/- and Rs.67,170/- therein. OP No.1 gave assurance to complainant that he will get Rs.21,724/- and Rs.78,656/- on maturity of the said policies.  As such, the OPs issued two certificates bearing no.787003100901 & 787003100902 under account no.23987201903 & 23987201904 dated 05.12.2018 in the name of complainant. The said policies got matured on 05.06.2020 and thereafter complainant approached the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amounts but they did not pay any heed to him and started putting of the mater on one pretext or the other. When the complainant was left with no alternative, he served legal notice dated 05.03.2021 upon the OPs but to no avail. Hence this complaint.  
3.           The OPs put in appearance through their Counsel, and filed written statement wherein various objections were taken to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between them; that for any dispute between society and its member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In Ms. Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Diretor, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., NCDRC759@2013) 4 CPJ 333 (NC) the Hon'ble National has held that the consumer forum have no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between co-operative society and its members. As per Section 3 (N) of The Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 definition of member is (Member means a person joining in the application for the registration of a multi State Co-operative Society and includes a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the byelaws). As per byelaws of the society, it is clearly mentioned that any dispute between the society and its member/ account holder should be decided by the arbitrator. The OPs are always ready to make the payment as per the conditions of scheme but due to enhance demand of interest on maturity amount the payment could not be made to the complainant at that time.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has made a statement that written version of OPs be read as evidence of OPs and closed the evidence of the OPs
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither making payment of maturity amounts under the certificates in question nor paying interest thereon, the OPs have committed deficiency in service.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant being member of the Society did not fall within the definition of consumer. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has placed reliance on the order dated 09.11.2022, passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in CWP No.5008-2022 in the case of M/s Saharay Universal Multipurpose Society Limited Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab and Others and also on the order dated 14.09.2022, passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow, in appeal No.901 of 2019, in the case of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited & Others Vs. Smt. Mangra Devi & Anr. He further submitted that since the complainant was seeking enhanced rate of interest beyond the scheme and scope of the agreement, as such, the payment could not be made to him.
8.           The first question that falls for consideration is as to whether, the provisions of the Societies Act  bar the jurisdiction  of Consumer Commissions and that the  complainant falls within the definition of consumer or not? It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 11.12.2003, in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1998, Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and other and vide order dated 24.03.2013, in Civil Appeal no.64 of 2010, Virender Jain Versus Alaknanda Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited and others, has clearly held that disputes between the members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Commission and that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition and not in derogation to the remedy under other Acts, unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction.  Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the Members and the Management of the Society under the Co-operative Societies Act, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Fora under the CP Act. .
9.           Not only as above, a similar question came for determination before five Members Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition  Nos. 823 To 826  of  2001, Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Versus M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thirft  & Credit Society  Ltd. wherein it was held that  the provisions of the Societies Act  does not bar the jurisdiction  of Consumer Foras assuming jurisdiction in the matter. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“……..We  are  also not in agreement with the view   of the State Commission that  a member cannot be a consumer vis-a-vis  the society of which he is a member.  As a member he  has certain rights in the society like  attending  its meeting and right to vote.   A member is a separate entity from the Co-operative Society which is just like a shareholder as in the Company registered under the Companies Act, 1986. Here is the society of which the complainants are member which invites deposits and pays interest and   is to refund the amount with interest on maturity.   Society provides facilities in connection with financing and is certainly  rendering  services to its members and here is a member who avails of such services.  When there is a fault  on the part of the society and itself is not paying the amount   on fixed deposit receipts on maturity, there is certainly deficiency in service by the society and a complaint lies against society by the member as a complainant.  A co-operative society under the Societies Act, is a akin to a  company under the companies Act, 1986.   If we refer to Section 35 of the Societies Act, a cooperative society is a body  corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things  necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted.  A co-operative society is not bound by the rigors  of the Companies Act.   Under Section 4 of  the Societies Act a society which has its objects the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with  co-operative principles may be registered under the Act.  A member of the society cannot exercise  rights as a member unless he has made  due payment as required by the bylaws  of the society.   A member has a right of one vote in the affairs of the  society.   It is apparent that rights of a member in a society  are   similar to  rights which a shareholder exercises in a company.  Rights of a shareholder are: (i)   to elect directors  and thus to participate in the management  of the affairs of the company, (ii) to vote on resolutions at the meeting of the company and (iii) to enjoy the profits of the company in the  shape of dividends.  A share holder is different  person  than the company of which he is the  shareholder.   Similarly, a member of the society is different from  the society of which he is a member.  He can certainly if occasion arises,  proceed against the  society  raising a dispute.  In the Case of Neela Vasant Raje  vs. Amogh Industries   &Anr. -  1986-95 Consumer  446 this  Commission had taken a view that with reference to Section 2(1)(d)  of CPA   that where a company or a firm  invites deposits from the public  for the purpose  of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with  security  of  investment  and prompt  repayment of the principal after the stipulated term  the transaction of such a nature  would clearly make the depositor a ‘consumer’  under CPA.  This  Commission also observed  that  the definition of  the expression ‘service’  was couched in the widest possible language and it expressly covered ‘service of any description’ other than  any service rendered ‘free of charge’ or ‘under  a contract of personal service’. Thus we hold that complainants were certainly consumers and could maintain their complaints in the District Forum….”

 

10.           In Ashish Ramesh Chandra Birla & Ors.Vs Murlidhar Rajdhar Patil & Ors.I (2009) CPJ 200 (NC), also, a Consumer Complaint was filed against Siddhi Vyankatesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Jalgaon, that some amount was invested with it, in a Scheme launched by it, but it failed to pay the same, on maturity. The complaint was, ultimately, accepted by the District Forum. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, First Appeal was preferred, before the Hon’ble State Commission, which was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum and the State Commission, Revision Petition was filed, before the National Commission, taking up an objection, that the Directors of the Society were not personally responsible, for any default of repayment of the maturity amount, by the Society. Ultimately, the National Commission, held that the Directors of the Society were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of maturity and were rightly held to be deficient, in rendering service, by the Foras below. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable and will also hold field as far as the present case is concerned.  The complainant therefore falls within the definition of consumer. Objection taken by OPs in this regard stands rejected.

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society and Virender Jain’s cases (supra), any findings given by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.5008-2022 or by Hon’ble State Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No.901 of 2019, reliance whereupon has been placed by OP No.1, will not hold the field.

11. As far as objection taken with regard to Arbitration is concerned, it may be stated here that this issue has already been set at rest by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements/contracts cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 and  Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, also stood dismissed vide orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018 respectively. As such, objection taken in this regard also stands rejected.

12.     Now coming to the merits of the case, it may be stated here that it is coming out from the certificate No.787003100901, Annexure C-1 and certificate No.787003100902, Annexure C-2 that an amount of Rs.18,552/- and Rs.67,170/- respectively stood, received by the OPs from the complainant. It is further coming out from the said documents that the maturity dates of the said certificates were 05.06.2020 and on maturity of the said certificates, the complainant will get an amount of Rs.21,724/- and Rs.78,656/- respectively. The plea of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, the maturity amount has not been given by the OPs.  On the other hand, the OPs in their written version have candidly admitted that the maturity amount could not be paid to the complainant because due to enhanced demand of interest sought by the complainant on maturity amounts. In our considered opinion, once the OPs No.1 and 2 have entered into a contract by way of certificates Annexure C-1 and C-2 and committed to pay amount of Rs.21,724/- and Rs.78,656/- after expiry of maturity dates i.e. 05.06.2020,  yet,  later on, by not paying the said amount to the complainant, the OPs No.1 and 2 have committed deficiency in service. The complainant is therefore held entitled to get the maturity amount of amount of Rs.21,724/- and Rs.78,656/-  alongwith  compensation etc.

13.     So far as the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP No.3 is concerned. It may be stated here that in the complaint, complainant has stated that the OP NO.3 allured him to purchase the aforesaid policies from OP No.1 and 2. More so, the amount of the complainant is lying deposited with the society and the maturity amount has to be paid by the society i.e OPs No.1 and 2, as such, we are of the view that the complaint filed against OP No.3 is liable to be dismissed.

14.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.3 and allow the same against OPs No.1 and 2 and direct them, in the following manner:-

                   (i)      To pay the amounts of Rs.21,724/- and Rs.78,656/- to the  complainant alongwith interest@ 4% per annum, w.e.f.                               05.06.2020 i.e. date on which the amount was to be paid by    the OPs, till its realization.

                   (ii)     To pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony  and physical harassment, caused to the complainant.

                   (iii)    To pay Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses.

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room

Announced on :16.01.2023.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

Member                                      Member                       President