Haryana

Panchkula

CC/534/2021

MAAN SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJINDER CHAUCHAN & RAKSHAK GUPTA

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	534 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	23.12.2021
Date of Decision	:	10.01.2023

 

Mann Singh s/o Sh.Som Nath R/o House No.110, Vasu Dev Pura/ Gidrawali, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana. 

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited Authorised Center:H.No.929, 2^nd Floor, Ram Bagh Road, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana-133302

2.     Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited Sahara India Bhawani, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,  2019.

Before:      Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.  

 

Present:     Sh. Rakshak Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                Defence of OPs No.1 & 2 already struck off vide order dated 02.05.2022.    

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)  

1.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was allured to invest the amount in the scheme floated by the OPs and on the basis of their assurance and commitments, the complainant became the member of the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society vide no. 2400140000762 and invested Rs.5,000/- on 23.12.2014 as per the details given below in tabular form:-

Sr.No.	Complainant’s name	Membership no. & Certificate no.	Account no.	Amount/date of  deposited	Maturity Amount/Date of maturity
1	Mann Singh	24001400762 &	24005100850	5000 & 23.12.2014	10,410/- & 23.12.2020

Apart from above, the complainant was allured to invest in SAHARA C. ANOKHA(M4) scheme vide account no.24005100910, wherein a sum of Rs.1000/- was to be deposited on monthly basis for a period of 48 months. The details of deposits as made in the said SAHARA C.ANOKHA (M4)scheme are given as below:-

Sr.No.	Complainant’s name	Membership No.	Account No.	Total Amount  deposited	Period of maturity/ Date of maturity
1.	Maan Singh	24001400762	24005100910	47,000/-	48 months

It is alleged that the OPs did not release the maturity amount to the complainant despite the repeated request made by the complainant and they kept on dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the Ops were requested vide letter dated 08.01.2019 followed by legal notice sent through Sh.Rajender Chauhan, Advocate to release of maturity amount but the OPs neither replied the said letter nor released the maturity amount. Alleging that the aforesaid inaction on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; hence the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OPS No.1 & 2 have appeared to contest the complaint but they did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including the last opportunity. Therefore, the defence of OPs No.1 & 2 was struck off by this Commission vide its order dated 02.05.2022.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

5.             During the arguments the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure C-A has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 have preferred not to rebut the allegations made by complainant even after appearance, as such their defence was struck off. Therefore, the assertions made by complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             Before looking into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to discuss the legal position whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission.  The issue came up for discussion before the Full Bench of Hon’ble National Commission, comprising of its three members, in case titled as Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition No.823 to 826 of 2001(NC) held as under:-

        “Member of the Society has certain rights in the Society like attending its meeting and right to vote. A member is a separate entity from the Co-operative Society which is just like a shareholder as in the company registered under the Companies Act, 1986. Here is the society of which the complainants are members, invited deposits and pays interest and is to refund the amount with interest on maturity. Society provides facilities in connection with financing and is, certainly, rendering services to its members and here is a member who avails of such services. When there is a fault on the part of the society and itself is not paying the amount on fixed deposit receipts, on maturity, there is certainly deficiency in services by the society and a complaint is maintainable against society by the members as complainant”.

8.             Moreover, it is well settled law that remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Reliance in this regard, may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha(Dead) through LRs and others”, 2004(1) CLT 456 in which it was held as under:-

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 Section3 seeks to provide remedy  under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar”.

9.             From the legal position as discussed above, it is clear that the complaint is maintainable before the Commission and the Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy involved in the present complaint.

10.            Now, coming to the merits of the case, it is evident that a sum of Rs.5000/-, which was deposited with the OPs vide certificate no. 914000366721(Annexure C-4) as mentioned in the above table, had matured on 23.12.2020 with the maturity amount as Rs.10,410/-. The non-payment of the maturity amount despite the request made by the complainant vide letter dated 08.01.2019(Annexure C-5) and legal notice dated 27.10.2021(Annexure C-6) amounts to deficiency and indulgence of OPs into unfair trade practice. Similarly, the amount of Rs.47,000/- as deposited vide account no.24005100910 had become payable after 31.10.2018. The Ops have failed to release the said amount of Rs. 47,000/- to the complainant despite his request vide letter dated 08.01.2019(Annexure C-5) followed by legal notice dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure C-6). The deficiency and the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is writ large on the face of the record as they have failed to make the payment of maturity amount to the complainant.

11.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions jointly and severally to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. The Ops are directed to make the payment of Rs.10,410/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9%(S.I.) per annum w.e.f. date of maturity i.e.23.12.2020  till its actual realization.
2. The OPs are directed to make the payment of Rs.47,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% (S.I.) per annum w.e.f 31.10.2018 till its actual realization.
3. The OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
4. The Ops are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation charges.

 

12.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:10.01.2023

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

           Member                          Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini                          

                                                        Member

 

CC No. 534 of 2021

 

Present:             Sh. Rakshak Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                        Defence of OPs No.1 & 2 already struck off vide order dated 02.05.2022.

 

Arguments heard. Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.10.01.2023

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal

              Member                   Member                                  President