Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/241/2019

Satish Kumar Saini S/o Lehana Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Mehta

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                Complaint No.241 of 2019.

                                                Date of institution:9.7.2019.

                                                Date of decision:2.3.2023.

 

Satish Kumar Saini aged 56 years son of Sh.Lehana Singh, resident of H.No.221, Village Mussimble Hinduan, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. M.No.9416965218.

 

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                Versus.

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Regd. Office 195, Zone-1, in front of DB Mall, M.P. Nagar Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462011 through its Director/Auth. Signatory.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Branch Office, neafr ITI Chowk, near Reliance Petrol Pump, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager/Auth.Signatory.

….Respondents.

 

CORAM:     GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT. 

                     DR. BARHM PARKASH YADAV, MEMBER.

                     GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh. Gaurav Mehta, Adv. for the complainant.

                     Opponent No.1 ex-parte (vide order dated 13.8.2019, however permitted to join the proceedings.

                     Sh.Rajbir Sharma, Adv. for opponents No. 1 & 2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.           Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex. C.7 attached with it, written statement supportive document Ex.R.1 attached with it, briefly admitted facts of the complaint are, the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, (for short Society) is registered under the provisions of the Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Act, 2002 (for short Society Act) and the Society is having one of its branch offices at Yamuna Nagar (for short “opponent No.2”), the complainant invested an amount of Rs.247973/- on 30.1.2016 vide certificate No.85000608306, which was to be matured on 30.1.2019, Rs.27752/- vide certificate No.85000608431 and Rs.25241/- vide certificate No.85000608432 on 2.2.2016, which were to be matured on 2.2.2019. (However, no maturity amount is mentioned on any of the certificate and the date of maturity is also mentioned by handwritten, but deposit of amount has not been disputed by the opponent, whereas date of maturity is denied by the opponent in reply to para No.3 of the complaint). The complainant approached to the opponents on the date of maturity to release the maturity amount, but the opponents failed to make the payment of the same on the date of maturity and thereafter, which according to the complainant, is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent society, which caused him mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constraining him to file the present complaint.

3.             On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponent No.1 failed to appear before this Commission, either in person or through any Advocate and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.8.2019.  However, the opponent No.2 in written statement have not disputed the issuance of the certificates Ex. C.1 to Ex. C.3, it denied the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and also denied maturity date of contributed amount or any fixed period of maturity, in fact, there is neither maturity date nor maturity amount prescribe under the scheme and it also denied any act of negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opponent society. Further pleaded, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint, as society is governed by the provisions of the Society Act and in case, there is any dispute between any of the member of the society and the Society, then the dispute is subject to the Arbitration, as per provisions of Section 84 of the Society Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this point.

4.             In order to prove his version, complainant kept reliance upon documents Ex. C.1 to Ex. C.7, but the same were not tendred into evidence by the complainant and to identify the same, the same were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex. C.7 on today i.e. 2.3.2023 at the time of passing the order. In order to prove defence version, opponents also kept reliance upon the version made into the written statement has been reiterated to. (For the purpose of brevity in the order, only material documents having bearing on the merits of the case shall be discussed and remaining may not be). 

5.             Sh. Gaurav Mehta, Adv. for the complainant, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance on case law titled Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC); M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018. 

6.             On the another hand, Sh. Rajbir Sharma, Adv, for the opponents in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint as well as written statement and he submitted, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, because complainant is the member of the Society and as such, he is not falling within the definition of consumer as and when, there is a dispute between the member of the society and the society, then the dispute is to be referred to the arbitration, as envisaged under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of M/s Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 (from the order dated 23.8.2012 in FA No.756 of 2011 of State Commission, Kerala) D.O.D.2.9.2013 and also kept reliance on the orders passed by the DCDRF, Bhiwani in CC No.73 of 2018 D.O.D.15.7.2019 titled as Sudhanshu vs. Sahara Credit and order dated 4.4.2019 in passed by the DCDRF, Sihore (MP) in CC No.31 of 2018 titled as Santosh Bhavsar vs. Parkash Patil.

7.             There are two moot questions before the Commission, first, whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission, secondly, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent and against whom? 

8.             There is no dispute, as per Certificates Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3, the complainant is the member of the Society. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the opponents in case of M/s Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., was by a Single Member of the National Commission, New Delhi, whereas the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the complainants, in case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC) is by Three Members of the National Commission, New Delhi and it has more weight than to the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the opponent and in the law cited (Supra) by counsel for the complainant, it has clearly been held “the Member of the Society 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 members, invited 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 is maintainable against society by the members as complainant”.

9.             Moreover, the remedy to raise grievance by the consumer is an additional remedy even, there was Arbitration clause as envisaged under section 100 of the Act. View of this Commission is fully supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D.O.D. 10^th December, 2018. Considering the law cited (supra) by the counsel for the complainant and law cited (Supra) laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018, the complainant falls within the definition of the Consumer for the purpose of this complaint and this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

10.            Coming to the second question, the opponent No.2 in their written version have not disputed issuance of certificates Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 in favour of the complainant.  The amount of Certificates Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 vide which amount of Rs.300967/- was invested, but the said certificates neither having any date of matured in printed manner, nor any amount of maturity. So far defence version of the opponent is concerned, wherein the opponent alleged that there is neither any maturity date of contributed amount nor fixed period of maturity.  Since an institution/society is registered under the provisions of the Society Act and is receiving amount under the shape of investment from its consumers or members, then, it is duty bound to issue fare certificate regarding investment by a person concerned and nobody is allowed to put any investor in lurch. In case the investment certificates are not having any date of maturity or maturity amount, it is also an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the opponents-society. 

11.            From the perusal of certificate Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 the complainant invested the amount on 30.1.2016 and 2.2.2016 and counting the period from 30.1.2016 and 2.2.2016, period of more than seven years have been passed and as the rate of interest applicable in the Nationalized Banks on the FDRs/long time deposits, the amount of the complainant may become double, hence, the complainant is entitled to the double amount, qua certificates Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 i.e. total investment Rs.300967/- and double of the same is to be become Rs.601934/-.  The opponent Society failed to pay the same to the complainant till date and the opponents kept the amount of the complainant as per certificates Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 for considerable time, therefore, it is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices. Apart from making payment of maturity amount of Rs.601934/- qua certificate Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3, the opponents-society is also liable to be burdened with punitive damages and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) awarded against the opponent society to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, financial loss, litigation cost, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

12.            Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is accepted against the opponents-society, holding them jointly and severally liable to make payment of maturity amount in the sum of Rs.601934/- qua certificates Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 (Rupees Six Lacs, One Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty Four only) to the complainant + punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to compensate the complainant in all heads, total Rs.651934/- (601934+50000) (Rupees Six Lacs, Fifty One Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty Four Only), within the period of two months from the date of this order, in default of it, the opponents-society shall be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum on the total award amount from the date of order till its actual realization. It is made clear as per legal parlance, the opponents No.1 & 2 is the one and same thing, therefore, it shall be the primarily duty of opponent No.2 to comply with the order at first instance

12.            File be consigned to the records. 

Dated: 2.3.2023.

 

                                                               (GULAB SINGH)

                                                        Distt. & Sessions Judge (VRS),

                                                                 PRESIDENT,

                                                                 DCDRC, YNR.

 

(GEETA PARKASH)       (DR.BARHM PARKASH YADAV)

    MEMBER.                   MEMBER.

 

 

Typed by Gaphoor Deen, Assistant.