Haryana

Ambala

CC/228/2021

Saroj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	228 of  2021
Date of Institution	:	27.07.2021
Date of decision	:	03.04.2023

 

Saroj W/o Subedar Sant Ram, Resident of 15/01 Anand Nagar (A) Babiyal, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Sahara India Ltd. Registered Office, Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow (U.P.) through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Director of Sahara Q Shop Unique Range Ltd., C/o Sahara India Limited 25-28, @nd Floor, Plot No.209, Altanta Building, Jamuna Lal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Maharashtra 400021.
3. Sahara Pariwar, House  No.5744/46, First Floor, Nicolson Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

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

                   Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (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.42,150/ and Rs.29,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 11% per annum till the realization of the amount:
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, torture and mental agony.
3. To pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

 

OR

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

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant being allured by OP No.3 invested Rs.42,150/- and Rs.29,500/- with OPs No.1 and 2, vide certificate nos.562016146685 and 562016146240 dated 30.06.2012. The said certificates when got matured after six years i.e. in the month of May 2018, the complainant approached the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amounts but they did not pay any heed to her and started putting of the mater on one pretext or the other. When the complainant was left with no alternative, she wrote letter dated 18.11.2019 in the matter but to no avail. Application dated 20.09.2020 written to OP No.3 and also application dated 28.09.2020 moved under RTI also did not yield any result. Ultimately, the OPs refused to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The complainant also served legal notice dated 26.06.2021 upon the OPs but to no avail. Hence this complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version 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 the OPs and its member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. The complainant signed application form to become member of the OPs to purchase some products of Sahara Q-Shop and that the advance amount by her was to be adjusted against the purchases made by her. As per byelaws of the society, it is clearly mentioned that any dispute between the OPs and its member should be decided by the arbitrator. On merits, it is stated that the Sahara Q-Shop is a registered Shop. Complainant became the member of the Society to get benefits of the said scheme and decided to become the member, after reading and signing the bye laws of the society, which are mentioned on the backside of application form, duly signed by the complainant. Thus, relation between the complainant and the OPs is of member and Sahara Q-Shop. It is pertinent to mentioned here that complainant himself violate the rules of the Sahara Q-Shop mentioned in the advance form as well as in the receipt that it shall be the duty of every member of a Sahara Q-Shop to promote and protect the interests and objects of the Sahara Q-Shop. OPs are always ready to make the payment as per the condition of the scheme but due to enhance demand of interest on maturity amount; the payment could not be made to the complainant at that time. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs have been closed by the order of this Commission on 24.02.2023. 
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also 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 providing service, for which they need to be penalized. 
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant being member of the OPs Society did not fall within the definition of consumer and that only an arbitrator can decide the said dispute. He further submitted that since the complainant was seeking enhanced rate of interest, as such, the payment could not be made to her.
8.           First coming to the objection taken with regard to that the complainant being member of the OPs did not fall within the definition of consumer is concerned. 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. Further in the case of Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Limited Versus Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., decided on 11.01.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the members of the appellant society are well within their rights as ‘Consumer’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.  The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable in the present case, the complainant therefore falls within the definition of consumer, the objection taken by the OPs in this regard stands rejected.
9.           The other 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.
10.           Now coming to the merits of the case, it may be stated here that it is coming out from the record that an amount of Rs.42,150/- and Rs.29,500/-  stood received by the OPs, vide certificate nos.562016146685 and 562016146240 dated 30.06.2012, Annexure C-6 and C-7 respectively from the complainant. However, the OPs have failed to place on record any evidence to prove that any benefit of the said amount deposited by the complainant stood given by the OPs, either in the shape of sale of any product/goods under Sahara Q-Shop or refund of the said amount alongwith any interest etc.  despite the fact that regular follow-ups were made by the complainant including sending of legal notice dated 23.06.2021, Annexure C-5 to the OPs. On the other hand, it has been candidly admitted by the OPs in their written version that the amount could not be refunded to the complainant because due to enhanced demand of interest on maturity amounts. Under these circumstances, the candid admission of the OPs that maturity amount was payable under the said certificates leaves no doubt with this Commission to hold that the amount so paid by the complainant to the OPs was refundable in the shape of maturity amount. In our considered opinion, once the OPs have entered into a contract by way of certificates Annexure C-6 and C-7, yet, later on, by not paying the said amount to the complainant alongwith maturity benefits or in the shape of any other option by way of selling products/goods to the complainant under Sahara Q-Shop, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service. The complainant is therefore held entitled to get the amounts of Rs.42,150/ and Rs.29,500/-  alongwith  interest, compensation etc.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay the maturity amounts of Rs.42,150/ and Rs.29,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum w.e.f 30.06.2012, i.e the date of deposit, till its realization     
2. 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 :03.04.2023

 

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

Member                                      Member                       President