Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/267/2020

Karnail Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar

12 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	267 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	06.07.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	12.05.2021

 

 

 

 

Karnail Kaur wife of Sh.Harpal Singh, aged about 58 years, resident of Bakarpur, Manauli, Rupnagar, Punjab

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Regd. Office: 195, Zone-1, infront of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462011 through its Managing Director.

2]  Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, SCO 65, Shivalik Vihar, Zirakpur, Mohali, through its Branch Manager.

3]  Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, SCO No.1110-111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager Sh.Arun Kumar Singh

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING  MEMBER

                                SH.S.K.SARDANA            MEMBER                                         

 

 

Argued by :-  Sh.Deviner Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh.Nitin Sharma, Adv. for OPs

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant, being allured by the lucrative investment options showed by the agent of OPs, invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- each i.e. total Rs.One Lakh with them vide Certificate No.85001762260 & 85001762261, dated 13.12.2016 to be matured after three years with maturity amount of Rs.1,53,600/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2). It is stated that after completion of three years maturity period, when the complainant visited the OPs to release the maturity amount, they kept on dilly-dallying the matter and did not make the payment.  Ultimately, the OPs refused to make any payment to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The OPs have filed written statement and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about deposit of the amount, stated that the complainant being member of OP Society (a Multipurpose Cooperative Society) with Membership No.960506001043 had chosen Super BB Scheme to make investment in furtherance of the objects of Society and on 13.12.2016 had contributed Rs.One Lakh against FDR/Certificates.  It is submitted that under Saharayn Contribution Scheme there is no provision of maturity or pre-maturity payment and the payment, if any, is to be payable strictly as per terms & conditions of the contribution. It is submitted that the complainant never approached OPs for release of the amount nor provided any documents.  It is denied that the complainant had contributed the amount of Rs.1 lakh for a period of 36 months, rather it was the contribution scheme.  It is pleaded that if any payment made against said Super BB Scheme, the same will be released as per terms & conditions of the Society. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record.

6]        The Counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the complaint is not maintainable under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the relation between the complainant and the OPs is of member and the Society. However, we do not find any substance in this submission of the Counsel for the OPs because the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force as provided under Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and as such this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Here our view is also bolstered from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs and others", 2004(1) CLT 456 in which it was held as under:-

“11.          From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever 'appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalities for non- compliance of their orders.

12.           As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar." 

         The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the judgment reported as "Smt. Kalawati and others versus M/s United Vaish Co-operative Thirft and Credit Society Ltd.", 2002(1) CLT 101 has also held as under:-

"Section 3 - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Sections 60 and 93 - Bar of jurisdiction - Deposits - Non payment of by respondent society on maturity to the petitioners who were members of the society - Complaint filed before District Forum against respondent society - Plea of the respondent society that in view of Section 93 of the Societies Act consumer Forum would have no jurisdiction in respect of the dispute - Held that a District Forum is not a Civil Court though it may have the trappings of a Civil Court - Neither it is a revenue court - Do not think that Section 93 of the Societies Act would come in the way of the District Forum in assuming the Jurisdiction.

 

(ii)            Section 2(1)(d) - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Sections 60 and 93 - Consumer Deposits - Non payment of by respondent society on maturity to the petitioners who were members of the society - Complaint filed before District Forum against respondent society - Findings by the State Commission that a member cannot be a consumer vis-à-vis the society of which he is a member set aside - Held that complainants were certainly consumers and could maintain their complaints in the District Forum."

         The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand and as such it is held that the complaint is maintainable against the OPs under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7]                Another objection has also been raised by the OPs qua territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Chandigarh.  Ann.C-1 & C-2 Receipts about the deposit of amount in question, dated 13.12.2016 duly issued by the OP Company mentions the Region as ‘Chandigarh’. Therefore, the part of caution of action has accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh and thus, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the present complaint. Hence the objection raised by the OPs is not tenable.

8]       From the very nature of the Receipts issued by the OPs broadly in similarity with FDRs/Deposits wherein the nomenclature of the amount has been termed as ‘Contribution’ whereas the maturity amount has been mentioned as ‘Contribution & Benefit Amount’ (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  On both the receipts same benefit amount has been mentioned and its tenure/period has been mentioned as 36 Months.  It is not a contribution, rather it is in consonance with FDR/Deposit Scheme and as such particular time has been mentioned besides its maturity amount.  The OPs wrongly stated that the said amount deposited by the complainant with the Company was not for a particular period, whereas it has clearly been mentioned on the Receipts that the Tenure is 36 Months. Without any iota of doubt, there is clear cut deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of OPs is evident, which is coupled with unfair trade practice.

9]       From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties have been proved, which certainly has caused immense harassment & mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against OPs with direction to refund an amount of Rs.1,53,600/-, along with interest @9% p.a. from 14.12.2019 till the date of its actual payment. The OPs are also directed to pay a compository amount towards compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

12^th May, 2021                                                                       

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER