Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/102

Gurjog Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayn Universal Mult. Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Lekhi

17 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 102 dated 09.03.2023.                              Date of decision: 17.09.2024. 

 

Gurjog Singh S/o. Karnail Singh, R/o. Patti Pheru, Gholia Khurd, Moga, Gholia Khurd, Punjab-141003. M. No.98141-65678.                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Regd. Office: # 195, Zone 1, In Front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011, through its Director/M.D./C.E.O.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Kailash Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Opposite Grand Marian Hotel, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.   
4. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Bal Tower, 2^nd Floor, Near Dada Moter, G.T. Delhi Road, District Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Manoj Lekhi, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the inducement of officials of the opposite parties of handsome return and timely payment, the complainant availed plan in the shape of FDRs from the OPs, the details of which is reproduced as under:-

i) Receipt No.34019448639, Certificate No.517-000141701, Membership No.960347000052 dated 16.10.2017 for Rs.30,087/- in STAR TWO plan of opposite party Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited.

ii) Receipt No.34019448627, Certificate No.467000141701, Membership No.960347000052 dated 11.10.2017 for Rs.22,650/- in SUPER BB plan of opposite party Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited.

iii) Receipt No.34019448635, Certificate No.467-000141709, Membership No.960347000052 dated 11.10.2017 for Rs.12,350/- in SUPER BB plan of opposite party Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited.

 

The complainant approached and requested the opposite parties to encash the above said FDRs but they kept the matter dilly delayed on false pretext. Due to non-encashment of FDRs amount by the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment etc. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and further prayed for making payment of proceeds of the said FDRs and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and distress. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed a joint written statement by taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not a Consumer of the opposite parties. The OPs are Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” (hereinafter called as Act) and the complainant being member of the society cannot be considered as a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties also further took the objection that there exists an Arbitration clause as contemplated in the Section 84 of the said Act, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Arbitrator.                   On merits, the OPs could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 is the copy of certificate No.517000141701, Ex. C2 is the copy of certificate No.467000141701, Ex. C3 is the copy of certificate 467000141709 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the OPs relied upon affidavit as Ex. RA submitted by Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the OPs and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and also perused and examined the record and following points of determination arises there from:-

(i) Whether the complainant being the member of Saharayn Universal Multipurpose  Society Limited was required to avail the remedy provided under this Act instead of filing the present complaint?

(ii) Whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so, its effect?

6.                The counsel for the opposite parties had vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by availing remedy under the Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court including that of this Commission. In support of the arguments, he relied upon the following citations:-

a.         M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs The Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013

b.         2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another

c.         1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase

d.         Smt. Paramita Deb Vs The Sector Head in Case No.A.2.2021 decided on 10.05.2021 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contends that the existence of alternative relief does not bar the complainant to avail remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                We have considered the contentions of the counsel for both the parties and are of the opinion that there is a force in the contentions of the counsel for the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act being a Special enactment created an Additional Remedy in favour of the Consumers to raise Consumer disputes before the Consumer Commissions constituted under this Act. Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of this act shall be in Addition to and not in  derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In this regard, a reference can be made the 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 Co-operative 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 in 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 Co-operative 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.

9.                It was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to honour the contractual obligation within the stipulated time. Even the opposite parties have not specifically denied the investment made by the complainant with them nor they lead any evidence in this regard. The act and conduct of the opposite parties firstly inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest his hard earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency in service. Rather it appears that the opposite parties had dishonest intentions to cheat since the inception of the dealing between the parties. 

10.              Moreover, it has also not been disputed that the complainant invested amount of Rs.30,087/-, Rs.22,650/- and Rs.12,350/- with the opposite parties as per certificates Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 respectively. This fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite parties in the written statement. It is settled that if the fact is not specifically denied in the written statement it deemed to be admitted by the opposite parties. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. C1 that the complainant invested Rs.30,087/- with the opposite parties on 16.10.2017, it is also evident from Ex. C2 that the complainant invested Rs.22,650/- with the opposite parties on 11.10.2017 and it is also evident that the complainant invested Rs.12,350/- with the opposite parties on 11.10.2017. However, the amount of maturity and date of maturity is not mentioned on the certificates Ex. C1 to Ex. C3. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite parties are made to refund the invested amount of Rs.30,087/- with interest @8% per annum  from 16.10.2017, to refund the invested amount of Rs.22,650/- as well as Rs.12,350/- with interest @8% per annum from 11.10.2017 respectively till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to refund the invested amount of Rs.30,087/- with interest @8% per annum  from 16.10.2017, to refund the invested amount of Rs.22,650/- as well as Rs.12,350/- with interest @8% per annum from 11.10.2017 respectively till 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 compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Monika Bhagat)                                        (Sanjeev Batra) 

 Member                                            President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.09.2024.

Gobind Ram.