Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/140

Pratibha Upadhaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Paramjit Singh Adv

03 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  140 dated 05.04.2022.                                                       Date of decision: 03.05.2023. 

 

Pratibha Upadhayay aged about 48 years W/o. Sh. Prabhakar Upadhayay, r/o. H. No.128, St No.3, Panj Peer Road, Corporation Colony, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana.

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited Branch Office situated at B-1/367, Guru Nanakpura, Kailash Chowk, Civil Line, Ludhiana-141001 through its Branch Manager/Authorized person.   
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Regd. Office at 195, Zone-1, in Front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Paramjit Singh Chawla, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that opposite party No.1 is a duly registered financial institution which is involved in financial activities and opposite party No.2 being its registered office provides different types of financial growths to their members by providing interest on the investments made by them with the society. The complainant being influenced with the advertisements of the opposite parties and came into contact of opposite party No.1 who offered her to join Sahara Parivar as an agent in order to satisfy the customers who are willing to get their investment plans. The complainant further stated that she joined and started working with the opposite parties as an agent and she herself took membership of opposite parties vide membership No.927034000014. The complainant took SUPER AB investment plan of the opposite parties vide which the amount is to be invested minimum for 30 months and after the expiry of 36 months from the date of contribution, the amount shall be disbursed by the opposite parties not exceeding Rs.43,240/- on a contribution of Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of cash or cash equivalent product including gold, jewelry etc. which approximately comes @17.30% interest per year. The complainant further stated that under SUPER AB Plan, she invested a total amount of Rs.51,000/- i.e. Rs.17,000/- each vide receipt Nos.34019447920, 34019447921, 34019447923 dated 31.03.2016 with opposite party No.1 who issued certificate No.105000294956, 105000294957 and 105000294959 in  favour of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that the complainant would get a maturity amount on 30.03.2019. On the completion of the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite parties to release the agreed maturity amount along with interest but they kept the matter pending on one pretext and another. The agreed amount along with interest was not disbursed despite complainant’s repeated requests and visits to the office of the opposite parties. 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 refund of the amount of Rs.51,000/- along with interest and 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 opposite parties appeared and filed a joint written statement by taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties is a 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 opposite parties could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record Ex. C1 is the copy of certificate No. 105000294956,  Ex. C2 is the copy of certificate No. 105000294957, Ex. C3 is the copy of certificate No. 105000294959, Ex. C4 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, along with the written statement, the opposite parties relied upon a short affidavit as Ex. RA submitted by Sunil Kumar Singh, Authorized representative of the opposite parties and closed the evidence.

5.                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 Sahara Credit Co-operative 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 Services 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 Co-operative 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 lead any evidence in this regard. The act and conduct of the opposite parties firstly inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest her 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 as per certificate Ex. C1, the complainant invested a total sum of  Rs.51,000/- i.e. Rs.17,000/- each as per certificates Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 with the opposite parties. 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 certificates Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 that the complainant invested total amount of Rs.51,000/- with the opposite parties on 31.03.2016 respectively. 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 total invested amount of Rs.51,000/- with interest @8% per annum  from 31.03.2016 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 allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the total invested amount of Rs.51,000/-/- with interest @8% per annum  from 31.03.2016 till date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and 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)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.05.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Pratibha Upadhyay Vs Saharayn Universal                               CC/22/140

Present:       Sh. Paramjit Singh Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the opposite parties closed the evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the total invested amount of Rs.51,000/-/- with interest @8% per annum  from 31.03.2016 till date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and 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)           (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.05.2023.

Gobind Ram.