BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No. 73 of 2018.

                                                         Date of Institution: 11-05-2018.

                                                          Date of Decision: 15-07-2019.

Sudhanshu Sharma son of Shri Anil Kumar, 40, Chhoti Bazaari, ward No.15, presently 17, Charkhi Dadri in the then Distt. Bhiwani.

                                                                    ….Complainant.

Versus

1.       Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., through Managing Director/Chairman, Sahara India Bhavan, 1 Kapurthala complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (UP).

2.       The Manager, Sahara India Parivar, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri

3.       Shri Laxman Dass Saini son of Shri Arjun Saini, Agent Sahara C.C.S. Ltd., near Hari Om Ashram, Ghikkara Road, Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   …....Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri M. C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri J. B. Saini, Advocate for the OPs.       

ORDER

                   This order shall dispose off the application filed by OPs for dismissal of complaint.  It is alleged by the OPs that the complainant had contacted the office of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited to become member and after understanding the bye-laws and objects of the Society he had obtained membership No.24821200163 of Society and being a member of society he got right to take part in the schemes of Society. It is further alleged  that for Society, the identity and status of the complainant is that of a member, which is definite and absolute and he cannot claim him to be a consumer of Society.  It is further alleged that he simply shared his money for furtherance of the objects of society.  It is further alleged that any person who is not a member has no right to take part in the schemes of society and complainant being a member is himself a part of society; as such he cannot separate himself from society.  It is further alleged that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs.  Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed his reliance upon RP No. 4871 of 2012 Anjana Abraham Vs Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank, decided on 2.9.2013 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 

2.                Reply to the application filed by ld. Counsel for complainant alleging therein that the OP No. 3 Shri Laxman Dass Saini, the agent of OP No. 1, who contacted the complainant’s father to become the member of OP to get financial benefits by depositing a sum of Rs.500/- for 60 months.  It is further alleged that as soon as complainant started to deposit the amount of Rs.500/- per month, he became consumer of the society.  It is further alleged that the complainant is supposed to get financial benefits after becoming its member, but he is not a part of it, as he has not taken part in its proceedings till date, that is necessary for a member.  It is further alleged that if the complainant had been member for its membership’s sake, the OPs would have issued him any notice to participate in its General/Special meetings.  It is further alleged that it is not a dispute between the Society and complainant who wants OPs to pay his amount of Rs.41,977/- to be paid by OP No. 1 on maturity after 60 months on 28.1.2017.  It is further alleged that the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 4871 of 2012 Anjana Abraham Vs Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank is not applicable in the case of complainant, as Bank provided services for a specific class/farmers who are members, whereas the OP No. 1 is a society for the public that is very much consumer for taking financial benefits.  It is further alleged that OP No. 1 has not been viewed the complaint in right perspective, as the dispute is not with the Society as member, but as consumer and the observation of the Hon’ble National commission is not applicable in this matter and prayed for dismissal of application with cost for misleading the Forum.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed his reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court decision in case Mandaltai Sambhaji and Anr. Vs The State of Maharashtra, decided on 14.11.2013.  But this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case due to peculiar facts & circumstances.

3.                We have heard ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the contents of the application, reply and written arguments of the complainant very carefully.

4.                 In our view, the plea taken by learned counsel for the OPs has substance. So, the complainant is not consumer qua OPs, in view of the Section 2 (i) (d) of the C.P.Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under:-

                   (d) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)       buys any good for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)      { hires or avails} any services for a consideration which has been   paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than person who {hires or avails of} the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person{ but not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose} .

5.                 Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above and in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 4871 of 2012 Anjana Abraham Vs Koothattukulam Farmers Services Co-operative Bank, decided on 2.9.2013, the application filed by the OPs is hereby allowed and as such, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs, as the complainant is not consumer qua OPs.  Certified copies of order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 15.07.2019.               

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                   (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.