Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/352/2022

Urmil Sehgal W/o Hansraj Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.S. Chauhan

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                Complaint No.352 of 2022.

                                                Date of institution:25.8.2022.

                                                Date of decision:4.11.2022.

 

Urmil Sehgal wife of Sh.Hansraj Sehgal, r/o House No.22, Brij Puri Colony, opposite Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus.

 

1. Saharayn  Universal Multipurpose Society Limited near Reliance Petrol  Pump above  Dhiman Furniture, 1^st Floor, Bye Pass Road Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch  Manager.
2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, 195, Zone-1, in front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (MP) through its Authorized signatory/ Managing Director.

                                                                         ... Respodnents

 

CORAM:     GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT. 

                     DR. BARHM PARKASH YADAV, MEMBER.

                    GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER

 

Present:     Sh.AP Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                  Sh.Saurabh Bansal, Adv. for opponents.

 

ORDER:

 

1.             This is complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.           Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 and written statement, briefly admitted facts of the complaint are, the Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Luchnow (for short Society) is registered under the provisions of the Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Act, 2002 (for short Society Act) and the society is having one of its offices at Yamuna Nagar and complainant who was the members of the society, invested a sum of Rs.10000/- by way of FDR Ex.C.2 on 31.12.2017.  The FDRs Ex.C.2 was issued by the opponent 36 months and it was agreed by the opponent to hand over maturity amount of Rs.26100/- on 30.12.2020 (date and amount has been written by hand on the bottom of the FDR Ex.C.2) as their date of maturity, but they failed to make any payment, which according to the complainant is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, causing him mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constraining him to file the complaint.

3.             On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponents in their written statement have not disputed the issuance of the FDR Ex.C2 and denied any act of negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the opponent society. Further pleaded, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint, as society is governed by the provisions of the Society Act and in case, there is any dispute between any of the member of the society and the Society, then the dispute is subject to the Arbitration, as per provisions of Section 84 of the Society Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this point.

4.             In order to prove his version, complainants kept reliance upon documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. In order to prove defence version, opponents kept reliance upon the version made into the written statement has been reiterated to. (For the purpose of brevity in the order, only material documents having bearing on the merits of the case shall be discussed and remaining may not be). 

5.             Sh. AP Sharma, Adv. for the complainants, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainants and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance on case law titled Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC); M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018. 

6.             On the another hand, Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Adv, for the opponents in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint as well as written statement and he submitted this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, because complainants are the member of the Society and as such, they are not falling within the definition of consumer as and when, there is a dispute between the member of the society and the society, then the dispute is to be referred to the arbitration, as envisaged under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of M/s Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 (from the order dated 23.8.2012 in FA No.756 of 2011 of State Commission, Kerala) D.O.D.2.9.2013.

7.          There are two moot questions before the Commission, first, whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission, secondly, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent and against whom? 

8.             There is no dispute, as per FDR Ex.C2, the complainant is the member of the Society. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the opponents in case of M/s Anjana Abraham Chambethil Vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., was by a Single Member of the National Commission, New Delhi, whereas the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the complainant,  in case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC) is by Three Members of the National Commission, New Delhi and it has more weight than to the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the opponent and in the law cited (Supra) by counsel for the complainants, it has clearly been held “the 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 service by the society and a complaint is maintainable against society by the members as complainant”. 

9.           Moreover, the remedy to raise grievance by the consumer is an additional remedy even, there was Arbitration clause as envisaged u/s 100 of the Act. View of this Commission is fully supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018. Considering the law cited (supra) by the counsel for the complainant and law cited (Supra) laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of  M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018, the complainant falls within the definition of the Consumer for the purpose of this complaint and this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

10.            Coming to the second question, the opponents in their written version have not disputed issuance of FDR Ex.C.2 in favour of the complainant. It is well settled principle of law, the complainant is duty bound to prove his case. He is not supposed to take advantage of the weakness of the opponent or to peep into the defence of the opponent. The FDR Ex.C2 is not showing the date of maturity, fact is clear from the FDRs as well as document Ex.C.2 and the same was to be matured after expiry of period of 36 months, facts is clear from Ex.C.2 (no doubt the date of maturity is mentioned on the FDR Ex.C.2 in hand written, but this fact has not been denied by the opponents in their written statement).  It is pertinent to mention the value of maturity has also not been denied by the opponents. Since, the facts of the complaint are admitted or not specifically been denied by the opposite party, the complainant was not required to place any more proof.  On calculating the maturity amount of FDR Ex.C.2, it became Rs.26100/- as per document Ex.C.2 and the opponents have nowhere denied the detailed mentioned in document Ex.C.2.  In this way, the complainant  is held entitled to the amount of Rs.26100/- qua the FDR Ex.C.2, as the opponent Society failed to pay the same to till date and the opponent kept the amount of the FDR Ex.C2 for considerable time, therefore, it is negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and if the opponents qua FDRs Ex.C2 is burdened with punitive damages in the sum of Rs.8000/-(Eight Thousand only), to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, harassment, financial loss, litigation cost, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

11.         Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is accepted against the opponents society, holding the complainant entitled to Rs.26100/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred only) qua FDR Ex.C2+ punitive damages in the sum of Rs.8000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only), total Rs.34100/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand, One Hundred Only), to compensate the complainant in all heads. The opponents are directed to make payment of award amount+punitive damages to the complainant as ordered here-in-before within the period of two months from the date of order by the opponents, in default of it, the opponents shall be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum on the total award amount from the date of order till its actual realization.

12.            File be consigned to the records.

Dated:4.11.2022.                              

                                                              (GULAB SINGH)

                                                        Distt. & Sessions Judge (VRS),

                                                                 PRESIDENT,

                                                                 DCDRC, YNR.    

 

(GEETA PARKASH)       (DR.B.P.YADAV) 

  MEMBER.                     MEMBER. 

 

 

Typed by Gaphoor Deen, Assistant.