DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Dated the 5th day of December 2022.
C. C. No. 129 of 2020.
Present 1. Shri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Sri Gajendra Barik,
S/o:- Late Bansidhar Barik,
At:- Matha Sahi (Near Rajghat Bridge),
Po/Ps:- Bhadrak (T) District:- Bhadrak. ………….. Complainant.
Versus
- The Sector Manager,
Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.Bhadrak
Sector Office :- In front of Behera Market Complex, Salandi By-Pass,
P.O/P.S/Dist. :- Bhadrak :- 756100.
2) The Manager, Sahara India Regional Office,
At- Chandini Chowk, Po/Ps-Buxibazar, Dist:-Cuttack, Odisha.
- The Territory Manager,
Humara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (Previously known
as Sahara India) TerritoryOffice :-At :- Plot No. 50, Saheed Nagar,
P.O./P.S. :- Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist. :- Khurda.
…………Opposite parties.
Counsel For Complainant : Sri J.B. Agasti, Advocate & Others.
Counsel For the OPs No.1,2 & 3 : Sri B.K. Swain, Advodate & Others.
Date of hearing : 28.11.2022.
Date of order : 05.12.2022.
SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts of the case is that :- The complainant is an old man & Senior Citizen of India and has deposited a sum of Rs. 73,228/- (Rupees seventy three thousand two hundred twenty eight) only on dt. 25.06.2016 for a period of 48 months in the Bhadrak Branch, Bhadrak (O.P No.1). After depositing the money, O.P. No.1 issued Maturity Certificate bearing No. 055000247704 in favour of complainant. The maturity value of the said amount will be paid to the complainant i.e. Rs.1,30,126/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand one hundred twenty six) only on 23.06.2020. But though the maturity period has been already passed, the O.Ps have not paid the said amount to the complainant. So, for that the complainant for payment of maturity value of the said deposit sent a legal notice to the O.Ps on dt. 06.11.2020. But the O.Ps did not pay the maturity value to the complainant, rather the O.Ps remained silent. So having no other alternative way the complainant has filed this case before this Hon’ble Commission for recovery of maturity value& prays to direct O.Ps to pay the maturity value of Rs. 1,30,126/- only along with Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony& Rs.5,000/- for cost of the proceeding.
O.Ps resisted the claim & contested the case that institution of O.P. is a Society, which is formed & duly constituted under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Being a multistate Co-operative Society, activities of the O.Ps is governed by the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 alone. The Act of 2002 is a complete code in itself & inter-alia provides for rights, obligations, privileges, and duties of the Co-operative Societies & their members. The Act, inter-alia also provides for settlement of disputes amongst the societies & their members. The O.Ps do not provide services to the members rather, the members jointly constitute a society & they are responsible to protect the interest of the society. The members of society are made contribution for the benefit of the objects of society. Complainant never hired any service of the society, so there was no occasion for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the society/O.Ps. The activities of the society does not fall under the purview of definition of “Service” as provided under section 2 (42) of C.P. Act, 2019. Therefore, consumer case is not maintainable. The term “member” has been defined by the Act of 2002 U/s 3 (n) which is reproduced herein as under :-
“Member” means a person joining in the application for the registration of a multi-State cooperative society & includes a person admitted to membership after such registration in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules & the byelaws”
Complainant has admitted to membership of the society as per the above provisions of the Act, 2002, therefore the provisions of the Act, 2002, therefore the provisions of the Act, 2002 as well as rules & byelaws of the society area binding upon the complainant .Relation between the complainant & society is that of a member and society not of a consumer & service provider. Therefore, for any dispute between society & members, consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission.
Heard both the parties & it is observed from the record and material evidences adduced by the complainant that he has deposited Rs. 73,228/- (Rupees seventy three thousand two hundred twenty eight) only on dt. 25.06.2016 for a period of 48 months . The said account has been matured on 23.06.2020 but the O.Ps did not pay maturity value of Rs.1,30,126/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand one hundred twenty six) to the complainant in spite of repeated request and persuasions.
Two contentions were raised on the basis of which the present complaint has filed
- that a Commission under the CPA has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints in view of the provisions of Section 60 read with Section 93 of the Societies Act and
- Petitioner is not ‘consumer’ availing of ‘services’ as defined under the CPA.
Section 60 of the Societies Act specifies the disputes which could be referred to arbitration under that Act by the Registrar of the Societies. It is not necessary for us to go into the question if the dispute raised by the petitioner did fall under Section 60 of Societies Act.
Section 100 of COPRA provides as under:-
“100. Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
Section 100 is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of CPA shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Thus even if any other Act provides for any remedy to a litigant for redressal of that remedy a litigant can go to District Commission if he is a ‘consumer’ under CPA. That remedy exists in any other law which creates the right is no bar to District Commission assuming jurisdiction.
We may now refer to Section 93 of the Societies Act which contains bar of jurisdiction of courts, which Section is as under:
“93. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.- (1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of-
(a) The registration of a co-operative society or its bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;
(b) The removal of a committee;
(c) Any dispute required under section 60 to be referred to the Registrar; and
(d) Any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a co-operative society.
2. While a co-operative society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against, the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.
3. Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any court on any ground whatsoever.
For one thing a District Commission is not a Civil Court though it may have the trappings of a Civil Court. Neither it is a revenue court. We therefore, do not think that Section 93 of Societies Act would come in the way of the District Commission assuming jurisdiction
In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Ramji Enterprises & Anr. (First Appeal No.411 of 1996) it is held that in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, District Forum established under the CPA will have no jurisdictions over the matters covered under Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Section 3 of the oldCPA-1986 which is parimateria same with section 100 of COPRA, 2019 is to be read in consonance with the provisions barring jurisdiction of a Court or other tribunals absolutely. If a District Forum assumes jurisdiction in respect of matter falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of Tribunals established under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 or the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or similar other enactments that would certainly be in derogation of those provisions which is not permissible. We may also refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. GO Garments - (1998) 3 SCC 247 where the Supreme Court said with reference to Section 3 of CPA, 1986 which is parimateria same with section 100 of COPRA,2019 that Contract Act would nevertheless apply to the complaints filed under CPA and that Section 3 could not mean to say that it overrides other provisions of law.
In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the argument that CPA is a general enactment while the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 is a special enactment as it was canvassed before us. This issue on the interpretation of a special or general Act does not arise in the present case. We therefore hold that Section 93 of the Societies Act does not bar the jurisdiction of District Forum assuming jurisdiction in the matter.
In the Case of Neela Vasant Raje vs. Amogh Industries & Anr. - 1986-95 Consumer 446 this Commission had taken a view that with reference to Section 2(1)(d)of CPA that where a company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a ‘consumer’ under CPA. This Commission also observed that the definition of the expression ‘service’ was couched in the widest possible language and it expressly covered ‘service of any description’ other than any service rendered ‘free of charge’ or ‘under a contract of personal service’.
Thus we hold that complainant is certainly consumer and could maintain his complaint in the District Commission.
From the above facts and circumstances, it is understood that the O.Ps have intentionally and deliberately caused delay in payment of the maturity value of the above mentioned accounts which tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It is also felt that the amount deposited by the complainant was his hard earned money saved/invested with the O.Ps to meet the expenses of his future requirements.
Therefore it is felt necessary to allow the case for payment of the maturity value together with future interest along with cost & compensation.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed against the O.Ps with cost and compensation. O.Ps are directed to pay maturity value of Rs.1,30,126/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand one hundred twenty six) and future interest as would be calculated charging interest admissible to the fixed deposit accounts. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which additional 7% interest per annum shall be charged on the awarded amount from the date of order till the date of payment.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this day of 5th December, 2022 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
