Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/505

Parkash Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.K.Bhandari Adv.

07 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 505 dated 30.10.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 07.10.2022.

 

Parkash Singh aged 71 years S/o. S. Jagat Singh, r/o. H #244-25, Gali #4, Link Road, Dashmesh Nagar, near Gill Chowk Wad #45, Ludhiana-141003, AADHAR card #3514 8314 1383.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., Regd. Off. 195, Zone-1, In Front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Madhya Pradesh, through its Chairman.
2. Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., Authorized Centre: Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. R.K. Bhandari, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         None.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he invested/deposited a sum of Rs.22,223/- vide receipt No.34019414915, certificate No.795000890023 and membership No.969876000797 dated 28.04.2016. The date of maturity of the deposit was 28.04.2019. After the maturity, when the complainant approached the OPs for the payment of the maturity amount, the OPs failed to make the payment. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the maturity amount of Rs.22,223/- along with interest @18% per annum and further the OPs be made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement claiming that the complainant is not a consumer nor there is any relationship of consumer and a service provider between the parties. According to the OPs, the OPs are a society duly registered under Multi-State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is a member of the society. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim himself to be a consumer of the society and the complaint against the society by the member is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission and all the disputes between the society and the member are required to be resolved as per the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act and the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The dispute with the society can only be resolved by getting the matter referred to the arbitrator as per clause 18 of the Super AB scheme availed by the complainant. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant chose to make investment with the society under its Star Two Scheme on 28.04.2016. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs did not formally submitted any evidence.

5.                In this case, one has been appearing on behalf of the OPs since 01.08.2022. We have, however, heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record and proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant invested a sum of Rs.22,223/- with the OPs vide certificate Ex. C1 on 28.04.2016. It has been categorically stated in para No.2 of the complaint that the deposit was to mature on 28.04.2019. The averments made in para No.2 of the compliant have not been controverted in the corresponding para of written statement. It is well settled that if any part of the complaint is not controverted in the written statement, it is deemed to have been admitted by the OPs. Even otherwise, it is mentioned on the certificate Ex. C1 that the date of deposit was 28.04.2019. There is further no dispute with regard to the fact that the invested amount of Rs.22,223/- was not refunded to the complainant even after the lapse of the maturity period despite repeated demands and requests made by the complainant. Non-refund of the deposited amount on the part of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.22,223/- along with interest @8% per annum from 28.04.2016 till actual payment along with a composite cost and compensation of Rs.7,000/-.

7.                The only objection raised in the written statement is that the complainant is not covered under the definition of a consumer as the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs and the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and further that all the disputes are to be resolved by getting the matter referred to the arbitrator under the provisions of aforesaid Act. However, in this regard a reference has to be made to law laid down in Mandatai Sambha Ji Pawar and another Vs State of Maharashtra passed in Writ Petition No.117 of 2011 decided on 03.05.2011 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court whereby it has been held that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and other authorities under Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In this regard, a reference can also be made to the law laid down the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held that the remedy available under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for redressal of disputes are in addition to the remedy available under the Co-operative Societies Act and Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act cannot stand in the way of filing a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.22,223/- with interest @8% per annum from 28.04.2016 respectively till the date of actual payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Parkas Singh Vs Saharayan Universal                                       CC/19/505

Present:       Sh. R.K. Bhandari, Advocate for the complainant.

                   None for the OPs.

 

                   None turned up for the OPs today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the OPs since 01.08.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the complainant heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.22,223/- with interest @8% per annum from 28.04.2016 respectively till the date of actual payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.