Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/388

Vijay Tiwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sharwan Sehgal

17 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 388 dated 11.09.2023.                              Date of decision: 17.09.2024. 

 

Vijay Tiwari Aged about 43 Years Son of Shri Darshan Tiwari, Resident of Kalyanpur Khurd, Gopalganj, Bihar.

Aadhar Card No.6415 9379 6711.

Mobile No.84091-40528.                                                                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

                                                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.

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

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the agent of OP3 allured the complainant to deposit the money with the OPs and as such, he deposited a sum of Rs.46,500/- in the shape of FDR. When the  said FDR got matured, the OPs again lured him to get maturity amount invested in schemes of OP1 and OP2 in the shape of FDR and the complainant was also provided joining points at that time. Every joining point was worth Rs.100/- at the time of redemption. Detail of the FDR and joining points is reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Certificate No.	Date of issue	Date of Maturity	Deposit Amount	Joining Points	Maturity amount
1.	467004995025	10.08.2018	10.08.2021	Rs.46,500/-	Rs.66,600/-	Rs.1,69,650/-
					Total	Rs.1,69,650/-

 

Thereafter, he many times contacted the opposite parties for release of FDR amount but they prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to encash the FDR. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and further prayed for paying the maturity amount along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment etc.

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 Ex. C1 copy of Identity Card issued by State Bank of India, Ex. C2 is the copy of PAN Card of the complainant, Ex. C3 is the copy of certificate No. 467004995025 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 Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, 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 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.46,500/- with the opposite parties as per certificate Ex. C3. 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. C3 that the complainant invested Rs.46,500/- with the opposite parties on 10.08.2018. However, the amount of maturity and date of maturity is not mentioned on Ex. C3. It has been claimed in the pleadings that the amount of Rs.46,500/- was invested for the maturity period of 10.08.2021 with maturity amount of Rs.1,69,650/- but he failed to prove this by any documentary evidence. 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.46,500/- along with its incidental and consequential benefits with interest @8% per annum  from 10.08.2018 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 and the opposite parties are directed to refund the invested amount of Rs.46,500/- along with its incidental and consequential benefits with interest @8% per annum  from 10.08.2018   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)                                        (Sanjeev Batra) 

Member                                             President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.09.2024.

Gobind Ram.