Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/247

Aarti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay Chawla

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 247 dated 04.05.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 03.11.2022. 

 

Arti Devi C/o. Krishna Sah, resident of Ward No.08, Padraun, Bajra, West Champaran, Bihar at present VPO Jandiali, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, having its registered office at 195, Zone-1, In front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011 through its Chairman/President/Authorized Representative.

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited having its authorized centre at Sahara India Pariwar F.C. Office, 4372, Ground Floor, Swarn Complex, Gaispur Road, Lohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on in the month of February 2018, an agent of the OPs allured the complainant to deposit his savings with OPs, upon which the complainant deposited Rs.71,250/- in the plan of the OPs who issued certificate No.467000922833 and membership No.943728000244. The said deposited amounts were to be matured on 08.02.2021.  After the maturity period, the complainant requested the OPs to release the maturity amount but the OPs started dillydallying and kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to release the maturity amount by saying that due to financial difficulties, they are not able to make the payment to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.71,250/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement, it has been, inter alia, pleaded by the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer as the OPs are society registered under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant bearing a member is not covered under the definition of consumer. Moreover, as per the clause 13 of the scheme, all the disputes are subject to arbitration as per the provisions of Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002. Thus, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and closed the evidence.

4.                With the written statement, the OPs submitted affidavit of Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the OPs.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.                It is not disputed and is evident from the record and documents available on the file that as per certificate Ex. C2 on 08.02.2018,  the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.21,800/- respectively, in all Rs.23,300/-, which the OPs were supposed to pay to the complainant on its maturity. The said amount was not released by the OPs despite the repeated requests and visits by the complainant. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to reimburse the deposited amount of Rs.21,800/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 08.02.2018 till date of actual payment 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, she is required to get her grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. 

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for the OPs but have found the same to be untenable. 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 case, there is also a reference 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 likewise. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                 As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.21,800/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 08.02.2018 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite 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:03.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Ranju Devi Vs Saharayn Universal                       CC/21/226

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.21,800/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 08.02.2018 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite 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:03.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.