Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/523

Raghvir Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Baljeet Sharma

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 523 dated 17.11.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 11.04.2023. 

 

Raghuvir Malhtora son of Shri Matwal Chand Malhotra, resident of House No.33-1503, Street No.12, New Ashok Nagar-A, P.O. Netaji Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Sahara India, Sahil Plaza, 4^th Floor, Dugri Road, (Near Libra Bus Service), Ludhiana-141003 through its Manager.

                                                                                      …..Opposite party 

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

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant obtained a certificate No.795000960087 receipt No.34019401494, membership No.924296001642 for Rs.4,43,647/- on 23.06.2016 for a period of 64 months from the opposite party.  The maturity amount of the FDR is Rs.8,87,294/- on 23.10.2021. The complainant approached the opposite party time and again for the payment of the maturity amount but the opposite party failed to pay the same to the complainant. Even legal notice dated 25.10.2021 was issued upon the opposite party to release the payment of maturity amount but to no effect. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party due to which the complainant has suffered mental tension, pain, agony on account of non-payment of FDR amount.  Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed to issue direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.8,87,294/- as on 23.10.2021 along with interest @24% per annum from 24.10.2021 along with compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

 2.               Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement. The opposite party took a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party 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 party also further took the objection that there exists an Arbitration clause as contemplated in the Section 84 of the said Act, so the dispute is liable to be referred to the arbitrator. The opposite party further alleged that for getting the payment, member is bound to submit application form for the demand of payment along with original certificate and other documents required by the society for verification. The members are also required to be present personally at the office of society with Identity proof to get the payment and to sign discharge voucher but the complainant has failed to comply these provisions.

                   On merits, the opposite party could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. The opposite party denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated he averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of certificate No.795000960087, Ex. C2 is the copy of admission fee of Rs.15/-, Ex. C3 is the copy of receipt of Rs.4,43,647/- dated 23.06.2016, Ex. C4 is the legal notice dated 25.10.2021, Ex. C5 is the copy of copy of postal receipt and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Sheela Kumari, Manager of opposite party 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 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 party, if so, its effect?

6.                The counsel for the opposite party 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 Chembethi 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 to 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 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 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 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.                It was the bounden duty of the opposite party to honour the contractual obligation within the stipulated time. Even the opposite party has 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 party 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 party 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 a total amount of Rs.4,43647 with the opposite party as per certificates Ex. C`1. This fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party 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 party. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. C1 that the complainant invested Rs.4,43,647/- with the opposite party on 23.06.2016. However, amount of maturity and date of maturity is not printed on Ex. C1. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite party is made to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.4,43,647/- with interest @8% per annum  from 23.06.2016 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 party is directed to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.4,43,647/- with interest @8% per annum  from 23.06.2016 till date of actual payment. The opposite party 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.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Raghbir Malohotra  Vs Saharayn Universal Multipurpose     CC/21/523

Present:       Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Learned counsel for the complainant closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5. Learned counsel for the opposite party also closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.4,43,647/- with interest @8% per annum  from 23.06.2016 till date of actual payment. The opposite party 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:11.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.