Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/138

Raman Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Paramjit Singh Adv

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 138 dated 16.03.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 12.09.2022. 

 

Raman Shukla aged about 42 years s/o. Rajinder Kumar Shukla, r/o. House No.13-E, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Branch Office situated at B-1/367, Guru Nanakpura, Kailash Chownk, Civil Line, Ludhiana 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,     2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Paramjit Singh Chawla, 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 took membership of OPs vide membership No.927034000237 under which the complainant took Super AB-30 & Super BB-36 plan vide which the amount was to be deposited minimum for 30 and 36 months respectively and after maturity, the depositor shall be entitled to receive benefit of Rs1400/- ad Rs.1600/- per month with interest @16.8% to 19.2% per annum against the contribution of Rs.1,00,000/-  as additional monthly benefits based upon the performance of business center i.e. Q Center or Q Joy. The complainant invested the following amounts with the OPs:-

S.No.	Receipt No./Regd. Folio N.	Date	Amount	Plan
1.	34019447159/27036600479	06.02.2016	Rs.32,849	Super AB-30
2.	34019447190/27036600508	08.02.2016	Rs.39,720	Super BB-36
3.	34019447191/27036600509	08.02.2016	Rs.40,172	Super BB-36
4.	34019447192/27036600510	08.02.2016	Rs.37,393	Super BB-36
5.	34019447193/27036600511	08.02.2016	Rs.80,345	Super BB-36
6.	34019447194/27036600512	08.02.2016	Rs.37,819	Super BB-36
7.	34019447195/27036600513	08.02.2016	Rs.32,849	Super AB-30
8.	34019447196/27036600514	08.02.2016	Rs.32,849	Super AB-30
9.	34019447197/27036600515	08.02.2016	Rs.30.903	Super AB-30
10.	34019447198/27036600516	08.02.2016	Rs.30,903	Super AB-30
11.	34019447199/27036600517	08.02.2016	Rs.32,849	Super AB-30

 

In all the complainant invested Rs.4,28,651/- with the OPs on 06.02.2021 and on 08.02.2016. In December 2020, the complainant was in dire need of money to expand business of his younger son Raman Shukla and as such, the complainant visited office of OP1 on 01.12.2020, 04.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 for disbursement of the maturity amount but OP1 started dilly dallying the matter and further issued a certificate on 27.02.2021 against the said deposit which was having maturity amount of Rs.7,69,024/- but 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.7,69,024/- along with interest and the OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

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 himself 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.927034000237.  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.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C23 and closed the evidence.

4.                The OPs have not tendered any evidence despite availing numerous opportunities.

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.6 of the complaint that he invested Rs.4,28,651/- with the OPs who issued certificates, copies of which are Ex. C2, Ex. C4, Ex. C6, Ex. C8, Ex. C10, Ex. C12, Ex. C14, Ex. C16, Ex. C18 Ex. C20 and Ex. C22. It has also been claimed that when the complainant approached the OPs after the date of maturity in December 2020, 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.4,28,651/- 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 she approached the OPs for payment after expiry of 36 months from 08.02.2016, the OPs refused to encash the deposit and instead extended the same vide certificate Ex. C23. However, Ex. C23 is only a hand written document with no date of maturity or date of encashment. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to pay the amount of Rs.4,28,651/- with interest @8% per annum 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. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper if OP1 and OP2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,28,651/- along with interest @8% per annum from 08.02.2016 till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that OP1 and OP2 shall pay the amount of Rs.4,28,651/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 08.02.2016 till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 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.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Raman Shukla  Vs Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Coop.    CC/21/138

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

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that OP1 and OP2 shall pay the amount of Rs.4,28,651/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 08.02.2016 till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 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:12.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.