DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 7.6.2021

                                      Decided on: 23.1.2024

Munish Sharma, aged 46 years, son of Naresh Kumar Sharma, resident of House No.124, Phase-1, Near Peer Samadh, Urban Estate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Parivar, Near Sethi Sales Corporation, Opposite Polo Ground (Lower Mall), Patiala, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj,Lucknow-226024 through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Vijay Goel,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for OPs.      

 ORDER

                                      GAGANDEEP GOSAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Munish Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer as defined under the Act, 2019 as he has availed the services of the OPs by depositing an amount with them.
3. The facts of the complaint are that the representative of OP No.1, on behalf of OP No.2, approached the complainant and allured him to invest an amount and their company i.e. OP No.2 in return shall provide more interest than that of the Nationalized Banks, as such he deposited Rs.1300/- per month with the OPs in scheme Sahara Credit with membership No.25921101571 with account No.25924801744 with opening date 23.12.2013 for the tenure of 16 months and the date of maturity was 23.12.2018 with the Scheme Sahara M Benefit (SCCSL).As such, since 23.12.2013 to 15.11.2018 complainant deposited Rs.78,000/- with  OPs No.1 and 2.
4. After the date of maturity complainant visited office of OP No.1 at Patiala for realization of maturity amount and requested to make the payment, but OP No.1 never paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The non -payment of the deposited amount caused mental harassment, agony, pain and financial loss to the complainant. This Act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
5. It is averred that the complaint is filed within a period of limitation. The complainant has deposited the amount at Patiala, the complainant is resident of Patiala and OP No.1 is also having its office at Patiala. As such, this Hon’ble Commission has got the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  Hence this complaint with the prayer that the complaint may kindly be allowed and the OPs may be directed as follows:

1. To make the payment of Rs.78000/- i.e. maturity amount alongwith interest as agreed in their certificates.
2. To Make the payment of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in services, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and pain.
3. To make the payment of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation charges.

Any other relief, to which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit, in favour of the complainant.

6. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement having raised preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as the present complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and unsustainable in law, is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is averred by the OPs that through present complaint the complainant is claiming having deposited an amount of Rs.1300/- per month in the scheme Sahara Credit with membership No.25921101571 with account No.25924801744 for the scheme tenure of 16 months and with the scheme Sahara M Benefit (SCCSL), and deposited Rs.78000/-.It is alleged that OP No.2 i.e. Sahara India is duly registered Society and the complainant is member of Society. Thus relationship between the complainant and OPs is of Member and Society. Therefore, for any dispute between Society and Member, this Hon’ble Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
8. It is further averred that the complainant had contacted the Patiala office where he is made his interest to become member and after understanding the bye-laws and objects of the Society, he had obtained membership of the Society. As such being a member of society he got right to take part in the schemes of Society.
9. That for Society, the identity and status of the complainant is that of a member of the society. He simply shared his money for furtherance of the objects of society. It is alleged that any person who is not a member has no right to take part in the schemes of society. The complainant being a member is himself a part of society; as such he cannot separate himself from society. The OPs have also placed reliance upon citation Ms.Anjana Abraham Chembehil Vs. The Managing Director,The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.,NCDRC 759 (2013) 4 CPJ 33(NC) having alleged that  the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between Co-operative Societies and its members and have placed reliance upon Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act,1969 in case of settlements of disputes, which runs as follows:

69:-Disputes to be decided by Cooperative Arbitration Court and Registrar:-1. Not with standing anything contained in any law for the First time being in force. It disputes arises:-

1. Among Members; past members or person claiming through members, past members and deceased members.
2. Between a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of that society or
3. Between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society.
4. Between the society and any other society: or
5. Between the society and the members of a society affiliated to it: or
6. Between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transaction or any person claiming through such a person; Or
7. Between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society Or;

Between the society and surety and a creditor of the society; such disputes shall be referred to the Cooperative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A, in case non monetary disputes and to the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such disputes and no other authority, shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes

and relied upon the judgments titled as Charanjeet Singh Vs. Sahara Credit
Co-operative Society Limited and another District Commission, Ambala CC No.0368 of 2018 decided on 5.2.2019,Vinod Kumar  Vs. Sahara Credit
Co-operative Society Limited and Ors., District Commission-Bhiwani C.C.No.50 of 2018, decided on 23.7.2019, Satish Kumar Vs. Sahara Credit
Co-operative Society Limited and Ors., District Commission, Bhiwani, C.C.No.51 of 2019, decided on 23.7.2019.

10. It is further averred that in the present complaint the dispute, if any, between the complainant and the OPs is between Member and Society, therefore, there is special provisions made by the legislatures in Cooperative Societies Act, 2008. Part XIII Disputes, 187. Settlement Disputes reads as under:
1.  
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
11.  As such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission and is liable to be dismissed.
12. On merits, the Ops reiterated the facts raised in the preliminary objections which are not need to be repeated for the sake of brevity. The OPs have  averred that complainant has concocted a story and has filed present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of agreement. The complainant has no right to claim against terms of agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental harassment and torture to the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint with cost.
13. In order to prove the case, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 copy of Member Ledger Statement, Ex.C2 copy of Aadhar card and closed the evidence.
14. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Sector Manager of OPs and closed the evidence.
15. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully with the able assistance of the Ld. counsels.
16. It is proved on the file that the complainant had deposited Rs.1300/- per month for the period from 23.12.2013 to 15.11.2018 i.e. for 60 months, thereby having deposited Rs.78000/- vide receipt,Ex.C1. It is  not disputed by the OPs that the CC had not deposited the aforesaid amount or that the amount was not payable after the period of maturity i.e.23.12.2018.However, the amount payable at the time of maturity and the rate of interest is not shown in Ex.C1. It is on record that the OPs did not make payment to the CC after the due date.
17. The objections that have been taken by the OPs are that the CC is a member of the society i.e. OP No.2 and hence it is a relationship between a member and society. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission is barred and the jurisdiction falls under the Co-operative Societies Act, 2008. It is pertinent to mention here that as stated in Savitri Devi Vs. M/s Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. and others decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh on 21.6.2021, that “the dispute is with regard to the dispute of amount under the scheme of the OPs for a particular period and the refund of the same alongwith benefits . As such the same certainly amounts to rendering of service as defined in the Act. There is an element of deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practice due to non performance of the contract, whereby services of the OPs have been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. It is further held that the OPs have not complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme by not refunding the amount deposited by the CC alongwith due benefits. There is no dispute between the complainant and OPs with regard to management and governance of the society. Hence the contention that the present complaint is barred by jurisdiction does not hold any ground.
18. Moreover as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 the remedy available before the Consumer Fora /Commission is an additional remedy. Further as stated by the OPs that the said dispute is maintainable before the Arbitrator or the Registrar also stands nullified in view of our above discussion and also as held by the Apex Court in  M/s Emaar MGF Ltd. Vs. Aftaab,2018 SCC 2378  that consumer disputes are non arbitrable and in  SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vs. Anil Kastimal & 2 Ors. III (2022) CPJ 224 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “4(i) Consumer  Protection Act,1986- Sec.2(1)(d),21(d)-Consumer Fixed Deposit-Deposit of money in a Fixed Deposit Account cannot be termed as commercial transaction – Submission of petitions that complainants are not consumers is rejected, respectively.
19. Further our view is substantiated by the cases as held in Secretary Thirumurugan Co.Op Agri Credit Society Vs. Lalita (Dead) (2004)CPJ 1(SC)  and Virendar Jain Vs. Alkananda Co-Op Group Housing Society CA No. 64 of 2010. Moreover, the deficiency in service where the petitioner has failed to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposits is within jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission as stated in  Kiran Krishna Agro Tech. Ltd. Vs. Smt.P.V.Santha Kumari (RP No.4229/2007). So we come to the conclusion that the present complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Commission and is within territorial jurisdiction as the complainant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Consumer Commission and the amount was invested in fixed deposits certificates through the office of the authorized representative of OP No.1 at Patiala.
20. Therefore, the contentions of the OPs that the CC has no identity separate from the society and that member is a part of society holds no ground. Further by not refunding the amount provided by the complainant in investment certificates, what to say of refund of the maturity value speaks of not only deficiency in service but also financial loss, agony, mental harassment and pain to the CC, which further negates all the objections made by the OPs on the ground that the CC has made a false and baseless statement; that CC has not approached the Consumer Commission with clean hands; that he cannot get benefit or claim beyond the terms and conditions of the certificate and has acted falsely.
21. Further the OPs have stressed the additional plea that the CC had made declaration to abide by the conditions of the scheme, as such the conditions are binding upon the CC. We find that it is the OPs who have not honoured their own agreement and rather have put the blame on the CC without any justification.
22. The complaint is partly allowed and we order the OPs to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.78000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation , for causing mental agony, pain, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. The OPs are also burdened with Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainant as litigation expenses. The order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.           
23. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to due to vacancy in the Quorum.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                            G.S.Nagi                             GAGANDEEP GOSAL

                                              Member                          President