Haryana

Ambala

CC/71/2022

Babita - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayan Universal - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Goel

14 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	71  of 2022
Date of Institution	:	03.03.2022
Date of decision	:	14.11.2023

 

Babita age about 51 Years w/o Parmod Kumar r/o 6, Patel Nagar, Kardhan Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana,

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, through its Managing Director Shri Subrata Roy, Registered office 195, Zone-I, In front of DV Mall, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal-462 011.

 

2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, having its Managing Director Subrata Roy, Head Office, Sahara India Centre, #2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (UP)

 

3. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, through its Regional Manager Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Regional Office: G.T. Road, Gohana Road, Panipat-462 011

 

4. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited through its Branch Manager Local Office: Sahara India Pariwar, # 5744-46, 1^st Floor, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             .…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

            Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Manish Goel, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                     Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1,3 and 4.

                   OP No.2 already ex parte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   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.273719/- to the complainant alongwith interest, till the decision on the complaint.
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs for harassment and mental agony.
3. To pay Rs.25000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the officials of OPs allured the complainant to invest in their company and the company will give handsome returns of about 15.25% on the said amount on maturity. As per the promise and assurance given by the officials of OPs, the complainant invested her money in the scheme namely “SUPER B.B.” of the OPs and deposited Rs.81022 vide certificate No.85000052767, Receipt No.34016017247 on 27.01.2016, Rs.15,723/- vide certificate No.85000052765, Receipt No.34016017245 on 27.01.2016, Rs.12488/- vide certificate No.85000607739, Receipt No.34016017383 on 04.02.2016, Rs.12250/- vide certificate No.467000920148 receipt No.34038153130 on 29.12.2017, Rs.25695/- vide certificate No. 85000052766 receipt No.34016017246 on 27.01.2016, Rs.5000/- vide certificate No.467000920126, Receipt No.34038153086 on 27.12.2017, Rs.1350/- certificate No.467004134791 receipt No.34038154737 dated 30.08.2018, Rs.9100/- certificate No.467000920127 receipt No.34038153087 dated 27.12.2017, Rs.1796/- certificate No.467004994398 receipt No.34016418593 dated 29.02.2016, Rs.1100/- certificate No.467004134619 receipt No.34038154419 dated 21.05.2018, Rs.6714/- certificate No.85000608255  receipt No.34019212619 dated 15.09.2016, Rs.10,242/- certificate no.85000607994 receipt No.34016418594 dated 29.02.2016. After completion of the maturity date, the complainant requested the OPs to pay the maturity amount of the aforesaid certificates, but they kept on lingering the matter and ultimately failed to pay the same.  Hence this complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1,3 and 4 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 society and its member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In Ms. Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Diretor, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., NCDRC759@2013) 4 CPJ 333 (NC) the Hon'ble National has held that the consumer forum have no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between co-operative society and its members. As per Section 3 (N) of The Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 definition of member is (Member means a person joining in the application for the registration of a multi State Co-operative Society and includes a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the byelaws).  As per Section 55 of The Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, A Multi State Co-operative Society shall have a charge on the share or contribution or interest in the capital and on the deposits of a member or past or deceased member and on any dividend, bonus or profits payable to a member or past member or the estate of a deceased member to the society and may set-off any sum credited or payable to a member or past member or the estate of deceased member in or towards payment of any such debt. As per Section 83 of The Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, Central Registrar has power to make an order after inquiry to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate, or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such extent, as the Central Registrar may consider just and equitable.  The complainant himself violated the rules of the society mentioned in Section 25 (5) of The Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 that it shall be the duty of every member of a multi State Co- operative Society to promote and protect the interests and objects of such society. As per byelaws of the society, it is clearly mentioned that any dispute between the society and its member/ account holder should be decided by the arbitrator. The OPs are always ready to make the payment as per the conditions of scheme but due to enhance demand of interest on maturity amount the payment could not be made to the complainant at that time.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.1,3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2022.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.1,3 and 4 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs No.1, 3 and 4  have been closed by the order of this Commission on 05.10.2023.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1,3 & 4 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           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 deficient in providing service, for which they need to be penalized. 
8.           On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1,3 and 4 while relying upon the case Pinak Pani Mohanty Versus Union of India and Others with W.P.(C)No.6/2023(X),( 29.03.2023 passed in I.A. bearing No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition(Civil) No.191 of 2022) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has submitted that as per this order, the question of genuineness of the claims of the depositors/investors with the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies  is to be exclusively determined by the Special Authority and the manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by it in consultation with  Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of the Apex Court and Sh. Gaurav Agarwal, Amicus Curiae and for that purpose an amount of Rs.5000/- Crores has been ordered to be transferred  to the Special Authority out of “Sahra-SEBI Refund Account”  for further disbursal of the same against legitimate dues  of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative  Societies. As such, in compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the proceedings of the present complaint may be closed.
9.           We have also gone through the contents of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Pinak Pani Mohant  Vs.  Union of  India &  Ors (supra), which are reproduced hereunder:-

 “3.        Having heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India and taking into consideration the facts narrated hereinabove and when it is reported that Rs. 2253 Crores had been taken out of the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., i.e., one of the four Sahara Group Multi-State Cooperative Societies and deposited with SEBI in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account” and the amount lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account” is lying unutilized and the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which otherwise, shall be entitled to get back their money, the prayer sought in the present application seems to be reasonable and which shall be in the larger public interest / interest of the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the present application stands disposed of with the following directions:-

Out of the total amount of Rs. 24,979.67 Crores lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”, Rs. 5000 Crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who, in turn, shall disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which shall be paid to the genuine depositors in the most transparent manner and on proper identification and on submitting proof of their deposits and proof of their claims and to be deposited in their respective bank accounts directly.

The disbursement shall be supervised and monitored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court with the able assistance of Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist Justice R. Subhash Reddy as well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. The manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in consultation with Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate.

X xxxx xxx xx. Xxxx xxx

We direct that the amount be paid to the respective genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,000 Crores at the earliest, but not later than nine months from today. The balance amount thereafter be again transferred to the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”.

 

From the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Pinak Pani Mohant  Vs.  Union of  India &  Ors (supra), it is clear that the question of genuineness of the claims of the depositors/investors with the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies  is to be exclusively determined by the Special Authority and the manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by it in consultation with  Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of the Apex Court and Sh. Gaurav Agarwal, Amicus Curiae and for that purpose an amount of Rs.5000/- Crores has been ordered to be transferred  to the Special Authority out of “Sahra-SEBI Refund Account”  for further disbursal of the same against legitimate dues  of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative  Societies.  Since, in the present case also, the complainant’s claim before this Commission is with regard to non-payment of the amounts deposited with the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no authority including this Commission has the power to decide the genuineness of claim or pass directions for disbursal of the claim except the Special Authority authorized by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide the aforesaid order.

10.           In view of foregoing discussion and in compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as aforesaid, the proceedings of the instant complaint is closed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Special Authority) for determination of her claim and disbursal of the same. Accordingly, the present complaint stand disposed off.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.         

  Announced:- 14.11.2023

 

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