Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/93

Mukesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikas Rai

02 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 93 dated 10.03.2022.                                                Date of decision: 02.11.2022. 

 

Mukesh son of Sh. Lakhmi Chand, C/o. Munish Kumar, House No.157/3/155/C, Guru Amardass Colony, Main Daba Giaspura Road, Near Bhullar Pind, Ludhiana. Mob. 9988985015,

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, registered office at 195, Zone-1, In front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011, through its Director/M.D./Authorized Representative.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Bal Tower, 2^nd Floor, Near Dada Motors, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Representative. 141003-PIN.                                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Vikas Rai, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that an agent of the OPs approached the complainant and apprised him of the plans of OPs and its benefits. On the allurement of the agent of the OPs, the complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- in the plan offered by the OPs who issued five certificates bearing No.795000890066 to 795000890070 dated 28.04.2016 of Rs.17,000/- each and certificate No.795000890071 dated 28.04.2016 of Rs.15,000/- and membership No.969876000825. As per clause No.6 of the terms and  conditions, upon the expiry of 64 months, the member shall be entitled to receive benefit of Rs.1400/- and Rs.1600/- per month as additional monthly benefits based upon the performance of business center i.e. Q Center or Q Joy. In all, the complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs on 28.04.2016. After the date of maturity, when the complainant approached the OPs to release the maturity amount, the officials assured to release the amount within two working weeks but they failed to do so.  The said amount has also not been disbursed to the complainant despite repeated requests and visits. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice 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.1,98,000/- along with interest and the OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant is a consumer. According to the OPs, the relation between the complainant and the OPs is that of member and society. According to the OPs, in case of dispute between the member and the society, as per the provisions Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. Even otherwise, if being a member of the society, the complainant has any grievance, his remedy is to get the dispute referred to the arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement of the scheme. On merits, it has been claimed by the OPs that the complainant herself approached the OPs in their office and was interested in becoming a member for participating in the schemes of the society to get the benefit. Therefore, the complainant became a member of the society and availed membership No.969876000825.  It has further been denied if there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Along with the complaint, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6.

4.                Along with the written statement, the OPs have also tendered affidavit of Sh. Sunil Singh, authorized representative of the OPs.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.                It has been categorically stated by the complainant in para No.2 of the complaint that he invested Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs who issued certificate, copy of which are Ex. C1 to Ex. C6. It has also been claimed that when the complainant approached the OPs after the date of maturity of the certificates, they refused to make the payment. These facts have not been controverted in the written statement by the OPs nor it has been specifically denied that the complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs.  It is well settled that the facts which are not specifically disputed or controverted are deemed to have been admitted as correct. It has been claimed by the complainant that when he approached the OPs for payment after its maturity, the OPs refused to encash the deposit. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @8% per annum w.e.f. 28.04.2016 till the date of actual payment along with composite cost of Rs.7,000/-.

7.                The counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as the complainant is only a member of the OP Society and being a member, he is required to get his grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the OPs has relied upon Anjana Abraham Vs Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that a member cannot pick up a conflict with Co-operative Society under the Consumer Protection Act as the alternative remedy available under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the dispute arising among committee of Members of Society in respect of the matter relating to affairs of Society, can be proceeded under Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the concerned District Court. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that the consumer jurisdiction is barred where matter is covered under the Cooperative Society Act and, therefore, the order passed by the Consumer Forum was held to be a nullity. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 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 has held that whenever there is a dispute between the member and the society, then the same is to be settled by the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and not by any court.

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for OPs but have found the same to be not tenable. In this regard, a reference can 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.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 28.04.2016 till date of actual payment. The OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven 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.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Mukesh Kumar Vs Saharayan Universal               CC/22/93

Present:       Sh. Vikas Rai, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Reply to application for dismissal of the complaint not filed. Heard. Since the procedure adopted under The Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature, the application for dismissal of the complaint is disposed of with an observation that the objections taken in the application have already been taken in the written statement and the same shall be adjudicated upon in the main order.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 28.04.2016 till date of actual payment. The OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven 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.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.