DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/180/2022

Date of Institution   : 01.08.2022

Date of Decision    : 31.03.2023

Parshant Kansal son of Moti Lal resident of House No. B-6/1, Ward No. 4, Bajwa Street, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab. Adhaar Card No. 7494-8634-8041.  

                          …Complainant Versus

1. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., 195, Zone-1, In Front of D.B. Mall, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462011 through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director;

2. Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., Branch Office Barnala, now shifted at Sahara India Parivar, Sethi Complex, 3rd Floor, Near Modi College Chowk, Opposite Apollo Ground, Patiala-147001, through its Branch Manager.     

                   …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI, MEMBER):

The complainant namely Parshant Kansal has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, (amended upto date) against Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has availed the services of opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant has invested a total sum of Rs. 56,000/- in cash with the opposite party No. 2 at Barnala for Super BB Plan for 3 years on 25.1.2019 and it was agreed with the opposite parties and the complainant that the opposite parties will handover the invested amount alongwith interest which comes to Rs. 1,38,373/- to the complainant on 25.1.2022 and the opposite parties have issued membership documents in this regard. It is further alleged that the complainant according to the agreement and terms & conditions tried to submit the above said membership documents in the office of opposite party No. 2 for the release of invested amount alongwith interest on 25.1.2022. But the opposite party No. 2 refused to receive the same and has verbally told to the complainant that he will receive the same after some days when the payment will be made to the complainant. After some days the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 for collecting the amount and depositing the above said membership document. It is further alleged that the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the payment will be made on the next month. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No. 2 but they linger on the matter on the one pretext or the other. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay a sum of Rs. 1,38,373/- the maturity amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. 

ii) To pay Rs. 50,000/-  on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses and the total amount comes to Rs. 2,13,373/-.     

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and invested an amount of Rs. 56,000/- under the scheme of the company at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the answering opposite parties was rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such, the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment, but she willfully refused to receive the same in part. So, due to this reason the above said payment could not have been made. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of certificate Ex.C-2, copy of receipt Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 21.11.2022 has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant.  

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 21.3.2023.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

7. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. He has further placed on record copy of certificate Ex.C-2 which shows that an amount of Rs. 56,000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. 

8. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 21.3.2023.

9. Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 56,000/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the records it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs. 56,000/- as per Ex.C-2 with the opposite parties as per scheme. 

10. However, the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection in their written version that opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In fact, this dispute is with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the opposite parties for a particular period and the refund of the same along with benefits. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No. 127 of 2021 & others in case titled Savitri Devi Vs M/s Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, decided on 21.6.2021 has held that Consumer Fora (now Consumer Commission) has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, where the consumer comes to the Consumer Fora/Commission claiming the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the present case also, consumer-complainant is complaining that the opposite parties have not complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme by not refunding the amount deposited by her along with due benefits. There is no dispute between opposite parties and the complainant regarding management and governance of the Society. Even otherwise, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection, 1986, now Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the remedy available before the Consumer Fora/Commission is an additional remedy. Accordingly the complainant, being member of the opposite parties-Society, falls under the definition of ‘consumer’. 

So, it is proved that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and the Consumer Fora (now Commission) has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the dispute between the Member of Society and its Manager not excluded from the Consumer Jurisdiction.

11.   Moreover, it is also mentioned in the written version that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the opposite parties were unable to make the payment to complainant and even the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment. Meaning thereby the opposite parties are ready to refund the amount of complainant in installments. 

12. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 56,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit to the complainant till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 4,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

13. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

14. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       31st Day of March, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member