IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Sri. P.M. Shivaji s/o. late Madappa, aged 50 years, resident of Kopatti Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District against the opponents 1 and 2 with a prayer to direct the opponents to pay matured amount of Rs.13,956/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization along with cost of the proceedings and compensation.

2. The opponent No.1 is the Managing Director, Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited situated at Lucknow and opponent No.2 is Branch office of opponent no.1 situated at Madikeri.  The complainant is the customer of opponents and availed the service of the opponents for consideration.  The complainant has kept Rs.12,000/- as fixed deposit on 01/09/2015 for a period of 12 months and the opponents have issued a certificate bearing No.925000407609.  After the maturity of fixed deposit the complainant has approached the opponent no.2 and requested to repay the matured amount but the opponents have been dodging the same and avoiding payment by assigning one or other reasons.   Hence this complaint.

3. After service of notice the opponent no.2 appeared through its learned counsel and filed written statement contending that the Sahara Co-operative Society Limited is registered under the Co-operative Society Act and having its branches at various states.  The next contention of opponent no.2 is that as per the byelaws of the society the opponents are doing co-operative banking business.  The opponent admitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.12,,000/- as fixed deposit at Madikeri Branch and certificate has been issued.

4. The contention of opponent is that this Forum is not having jurisdiction to settle the dispute which has arisen between the complainant and opponents since as per the byelaws the dispute has to be referred before the arbitrators for settlement.  However it is contended that branch office at various states are making hectic efforts to meet the needs of the customers.

5. The notice of opponent No.1 has been duly served on him on 13/10/2017 as per postal reply and inspite of the service of notice the opponent was set exparte.

6. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibit P1 fixed deposit certificate.  On behalf of opponent no.2 one V.P. Manohar s/o. late  V.B. Shiva filed affidavit in lieu of evidence.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opponent no.2 where as the learned counsel for the complainant submitted written arguments and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether the complainant further proves that the act of opponents not returning the fixed deposit amount along with accrued interest amounts to deficiency in service?

3. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

4. What order?

8. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.2:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.3:- In the Affirmative
• Point No.4:-As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

9. Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the opponent no.2 vehemently argued that the opponent no.1 is doing banking business registered under the Co-operative Society Act.  As per byelaws of the society all the dispute shall be referred to arbitration.  In para No.2 of the written statement / objections stated that it is doing banking business in various states by opening branches including at Madikeri, Karnataka State.  The opponent No.2 in para No.2 of the version/ written statement clearly admitted that they are collecting deposit from customers as per the byelaw and as per the decision of 12 Directors they are dealing with co-operative banking business.  Further the opponent No.2 in the affidavit evidence stated that the members of the society for mutual help depositing the amount and occasionally receiving loan from the co-operative society.  The opponent has not disputed issue of P1 certificate dated 01/09/2015 for Rs.12,000/- and its maturity date is 01/03/2017 for Rs.13,956/-.

10. Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “consumer” means any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiaries of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such service and availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

11. We have to see the definition of service and section 2(1)(o) defines “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not includes the rendering of service free of charge or under a control of personal service. 

The complainant has availed the service of opponents by keeping Rs.12,000/- as fixed deposit.The opponents have promised to return back the fixed deposit amount on its maturity.Definition of service includes banking and financing.The opponents in the affidavit evidence clearly admitted that the Sahara Co-operative Society is doing banking business.Therefore, the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer as the complainant has deposited some amount to get interest from the society.

12. On the expiry of maturity period the opponent has refused to do its service i.e. to return the fixed deposit amount with interest.  In addition to that the Consumer Protection Act is a Central Legislation and this Act is in addition to the Uttar Pradesh Multiple Co-operative Society’s Act, 2002.  Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act says that 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.  In Jagadamba Rice Mill v/s Union of India 1991 (1) CPJ 273 it is held that where additional rights and remedies are granted to the consumers by the act itself, courts are not to interpret the same in such a manner as to cut and abridge the scope thereof.  Rights and remedies under the act cannot be curbed either by statutory arbitration provision contained in an earlier law or by some arbitration agreement entered in to by the parties themselves.  If that is not so, not only the scope of the act would be entailed but by introducing arbitration clause whole of the act would be rendered in applicable.  Section 3 of the act the Consumer Protection Act says that act is in addition to the Multiple Co-operative Societies Act.  There is no bar to entertain the complaint by this Forum though there is a byelaw of the society to settle the dispute through arbitration.  Therefore, the complainant falls under the definition of consumer since the opponents have failed to render the service by not returning the fixed deposit amount with accrued interest on the expiry of the maturity period.  Accordingly point no.1 has to be answered in favour of the complainant hence, it is answered in the affirmative.

13. Point No.2 to 4 :- The opponent has not disputed the deposit of Rs.12,000/- by the complainant vide exhibit P1 certificate dated 01/09/2015 and maturity was on 01/03/2017.  The opponent has not repaid the fixed deposit amount along with accrued interest inspite of repeated oral request made by the complainant.  The opponent in the version and affidavit evidence not disputed its liability to return the fixed deposit amount along with accrued interest, but has expressed its inability by stating unacceptable reasons.  Therefore, the act of opponents not returning the fixed deposit amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is entitled for compensation due to physical and mental agony but he has not asked specific amount.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for suffering physical and mental agony.  In addition to that the complainant is entitled to litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- from the opponents.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri. P.M. Shivaji s/o. late Madappa is allowed directing the opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,956/- to the complainant within two months from the date of order with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of default i.e. on 01/03/2017 till the date of realization.
2. The opponents shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- + litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of order otherwise it carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its payment.
3. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opponents at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 01^stday of DECEMBER, 2018)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                     (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                             MEMBER