Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Ms. Shruti Sethi, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

ORDER

PER MONIKA BAHGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the agent of OP3 allured the complainant to deposit the money with the OPs and as such, he deposited a sum of Rs.11,300/- in the shape of FDR. When the  said FDR got matured, the OPs again lured him to get maturity amount invested in schemes of OP1 and OP2 in the shape of FDR and the complainant was also provided joining points at that time. Every joining point was worth Rs.100/- at the time of redemption. Detail of the FDR and joining points is reproduced as under:-

Thereafter, he many times contacted the opposite parties for release of FDR amount but they prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to encash the FDR. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and further prayed for paying the maturity amount along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment etc.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a joint written statement by taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties is a society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” (hereinafter called as Act) and the complainant being member of the society cannot be considered as a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties also further took the objection that there exists an Arbitration clause as contemplated in the Section 84 of the said Act, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Arbitrator. On merits, the opposite parties could not deny the investment made by the complainant with them. So the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 copy of passbook of Indian Bank, Ex. C2 is the copy of his PAN Card, Ex. C3 is the copy of certificate No. 517001050643 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs suffered statement that the written reply field by the OPs be read as evidence of the OPs also and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and also perused and examined the record and following points of determination arises there from:-

(i) Whether the complainant being the member of Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited was required to avail the remedy provided under this Act instead of filing the present complaint?

(ii) Whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so, its effect?

6.                The counsel for the opposite parties had vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by availing remedy under the Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court including that of this Commission. In support of the arguments, he relied upon the following citations:-

a.         M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs The Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013

b.         2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another

c.         1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase

d.         Smt. Paramita Deb Vs The Sector Head in Case No.A.2.2021 decided on 10.05.2021 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contends that the existence of alternative relief does not bar the complainant to avail remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.