Assam

Cachar

CC/16/2020

Raibun Nessa Laskar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sahara India Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Represented by its General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Riajul Hoque Barbhuiya

29 Oct 2022

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/2020
( Date of Filing : 16 Jul 2020 )
 
1. Raibun Nessa Laskar
Barenga- V, Nayagram, P.O- Bethukandi, P/S- Silchar
Cachar
Assam
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Sahara India Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Represented by its General Manager
Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoor Thala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024
Uttar Pradesh
2. The Sahara India Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Franchise Office represented by its F.C Manager
Amraghat Road, Kabunganj, Pin- 788121
Cachar
Assam
3. Ajmal Hussain Mazumder
Sonabarighat Part-1, P.O- Sonabarighat, Opp.ONGC, Near Supply Godown, FC Manager.
Cachar
Assam
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey PRESIDENT
  Kamal Kumar Sarda MEMBER
  Deepanita Goswami MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Oct 2022
Final Order / Judgement

JUDGMENT  AND  ORDER

 

                                                                      The case of the complainant , in brief, is that  complainant   Raibun  Nessa  Laskar   W/O  Late  Nazrul  Islam  Laskar    deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/05/2016 vide account no. 69046200694,  Rs.50,000/-   on 31/05/2016  vide  account no.-69046200690, Rs.1,00,000/-  on  31/05/2016  vide account  no. 69046200691, Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/05/2016 vide  account  no.69046200693,  Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/05/2016  vide account no.69046200696,  Rs.1,50,000/-  on  31/05/2016  vide account  no.69046200695   with the  Opposite Party Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.  for a period of  one year.  But  on the date of maturity  the  O.P.  failed to pay the  matured amount  of the aforesaid certificates.   Subsequently  the  O.P.  paid  Rs.7,468/-  on 23/03/2018,  Rs.40,000/-  on  28/05/2018,  Rs.20,000/-  on  31/07/2018,  Rs.20,000/-  on  02/08/2018,  Rs10,124/-  on  25/03/2018 and another amount of Rs.6,390/-  on  07/12/2019.  Thus  though  the  O.Ps.  were liable to pay  Rs. 6,68,600/-  on  31/05/2017  against the amounts deposited  but the  O.Ps.  pad Rs. 1,03,982/- out of the total maturity amount .  That on  14/12/2019 the complainant came to know from  O.P. nos.  2 & 3 that an amount Rs.57368/- vide account no. 69046200690, an amount of Rs.1,17,557/- vide account no.69046200696, an amount of Rs.1,14,736/-  vide account  no.69046200691, an amount of Rs. 1,17,557/-  vide account no.69046200693  and another amount of Rs.1,15,672/-  vide account  no. 69047202739  totalling Rs.5,22,890/-  were reinvested  with a promise to pay interest @ 11%  per  month  with further promise to pay Rs.3734/- per month as against MIS  against account  no. 69046200690,  A/C  no. 69046200696,  A/C  no. 69046200691, A/C  no. 69046200693  and maturity amount of Rs.1,35,452/-  against account no. 69047202739.  It has been alleged that  the O.Ps.  had not pay a single paise  as  MIS.   Further allegation of the complainant is that the O.Ps  reinvested the aforesaid amount  without her consent  and also  the total invested amount of Rs. 5,22,890/-  is less than the amount matured on 31/05/2017.   That on receipt of the legal notice of the complainant  the O.Ps.  assured the  complainant that  within three months they will make payment of all matured amount  but on  29/02/2020 the  O.Ps. paid Rs.11,200/- and on 17/05/2020  paid Rs.30,000/-  only and did not pay the remaining amount.  According to the complainant , the  O.Ps. have caused disservice  and their activities are illegal,  unethical and in violation of the terms and conditions of the scheme.  The complainant has , therefore,  prayed for passing an award  of Rs.3,734/-X18 = 67,212/-  as against  MIS +  principal amount of Rs. 4,07,218/- of a/c no. 69046200690  matured on 08/07/2019, a/c no. 69046200696 matured on 08/07/2019 alongwith interest  @ 11% per annum till full and final payment,  A/c no. 69046200691 matured on 08/07/2019, A/C no. 69046200693 matured on 08/07/2019 + Rs.1,35,452/- of A/C no. 69047202739 matured on 07/06/2020 alongwith interest @ 11% per annum till full and final payment +Rs.41,728/-( misappropriated amount ) alongwith interest @ 11 % per annum w.e.f.  31/05/2017 till full and final payment + Rs.5,14,822/-   etc , compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing disservice,  cost of litigation and for other reliefs. 

                                      The  Opposite Parties  have jointly filed written statement stating, interalia, that there is no cause of action of this case, that the complaint is not maintainable  etc.  It has been stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the  O.P.  There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the  O.P.  as the O.P.  Sahara  India  Credit Co-operative   Society Ltd. is a duly registered society and the complainant is a member of the society.  Therefore for any dispute between the  Society and its  Members the consumer complaint is not maintainable rather  in case of dispute between the Co-operative Society and Member  Account holder, the same shall be decided by an Arbitrator as  per Multi-State Co-operative Society Act, 2002.  The O.Ps. have denied that they created any undue pressure upon the complainant to  re-invest their money. That the complainant  has  also made  false statement  in her plaint regarding the payments received by her from the O.Ps. As  out of the total matured amount of Rs.6,68,600/- complainant has  received  an amount of Rs.1,68,918/-  only on different dates till the month of  May’2020  but the complainant erroneously stated that  she received only Rs.1,03,982/- with an intention to misrepresent the facts.  Under the circumstances  the O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the  case.

                                                 In support of the case   the complainant has submitted  her evidence on affidavit  as PW-1 and has also exhibited  some documents.  On  the other hand,  evidence on affidavit  of one  Sri  Ajmal  Hussain  Mazumder,   Branch Manager,  Kabuganj  Branch of the O.P.  Company    has  been submitted from the side of  the Opposite Parties  as DW-1.   Both  sides also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of  the  respective parties.  Perused the entire evidence on record.  Let us  now appreciate the evidence below.

                                                      In her evidence PW-1 , the complainant, has reiterated the same facts as has been  narrated in the complaint petition.  PW-1 has  averred that  she deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/05/2016 vide account no. 69046200694,  Rs.50,000/-   on 31/05/2016  vide  account no.-69046200690, Rs.1,00,000/-  on  31/05/2016  vide account  no. 69046200691, Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/05/2016 vide  account  no.69046200693,  Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/05/2016  vide account no.69046200696,  Rs.1,50,000/-  on  31/05/2016  vide account  no.69046200695   with the  Opposite Party Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.  for a period of  one year.  But  on the date of maturity  the  O.P.  failed to pay the  matured amount  of the aforesaid certificates.   Subsequently  the  O.P.  paid  Rs.7,468/-  on 23/03/2018,  Rs.40,000/-  on  28/05/2018,  Rs.20,000/-  on  31/07/2018,  Rs.20,000/-  on  02/08/2018,  Rs10,124/-  on  25/03/2018 and another amount of Rs.6,390/-  on  07/12/2019.  Thus  though  the  O.Ps.  were liable to pay  Rs. 6,68,600/-  on  31/05/2017 against the amounts deposited  but the  O.Ps.  paid  only Rs. 1,03,982/- out of the total maturity amount.  However,  PW-1  has contended the fact that  the  O.Ps.  paid  Rs.11,200/-on 29/02/2020,  Rs.30,000/-  on  17/05/2020  and  after filing of this case the  O.Ps.  again  paid Rs.20,000/-  on  29/07/2020  and  Rs.3736/-  on  03/08/2020. So it is clear from the testimony of PW-1 that she received total amount of Rs. 1,68,918/- from the O.Ps. PW-1 has further stated that  on  14/12/2019  she came to know from  O.P. nos.  2 & 3 that an amount Rs.57368/- vide account no. 69046200690, an amount of Rs.1,17,557/- vide account no.69046200696, an amount of Rs.1,14,736/-  vide account  no.69046200691, an amount of Rs. 1,17,557/-  vide account no.69046200693  and another amount of Rs.1,15,672/-  vide account  no. 69047202739  totalling Rs.5,22,890/-  were reinvested  with a promise to pay interest @ 11%  per  month  with further promise to pay Rs.3734/- per month as against MIS  against account  no. 69046200690,  A/C  no. 69046200696,  A/C  no. 69046200691, A/C  no. 69046200693  and maturity amount of Rs.1,35,452/-  against account no. 69047202739  but the  O.Ps. had not  paid a single paise as  MIS  and thus the  O.Ps. have violated the terms and conditions of the investments.  It  has been further alleged by PW-1 that  in spite of her demand the  O.Ps.  have not paid the matured amount.   PW-1  has  exhibited  the  certificates (proved  in  original ) of deposited amount alongwith other  documents.   On the other  hand,   in his evidence  DW-1 , however,   has not disputed the claim of PW-1 regarding the fact that the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 6,68,600/-in  different schemes of O.P.  knowing fully the terms and conditions of  O.P.  as described in the passbook issued by the  O.P.  It is further stated by DW-1 that  an amount of Rs.1,68,918/- was returned by the O.P.  to the complainant till the month of  May’2020. Further version of  DW-1  is that due to embargo  put on the entire Sahara  Group the  O.P.  is unable to make any payment to its esteemed  investors.  DW-1 has  also denied  that there was any negligence  and disservice on the part of the  O.Ps.   Again it has been claimed by  DW-1 that  the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. rather he is a member of the O.P.  Society and  therefore as per law if any dispute arises between the Society and its member, the consumer complaint is not maintainable and  the said dispute shall be decided by an Arbitrator as per  Multi-State  Co-operative Society  Act,  2002.

                                                    In  the  present case   Opposite Party  Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society  Ltd.  has not disputed the claim of the Complainant  in respect of  her deposit of amount with the O.P. and  the fact that  the said deposit has already been matured.   But  the learned counsel for the O.P.   has vehemently contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant herself is  a society member and not a consumer of the O.Ps. and as such this commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. It  has been submitted  that  as per Co-operative Societies Act  any  dispute between the Sciety and its member is to be decided by the Arbitration Court.   As such the main point to be decided in this case is  whether complainant is a consumer or not and complaint before this commission is maintainable  or not ? 

                                    According to the  O.P.  any complaint relating to monetary disputes in the society are only maintainable before the  Arbitration Court and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try such  complaint. On the other hand,  the version of the complainant  side is that  she invested the money with the  O.P. and the same has already been matured . It  is also not a case of premature withdrawal.  So the O.P. is bound to make payment and as the deposit of money is not disputed  so  certainly  the  complainant  is  a consumer of opposite parties.  The learned counsel for the complainant  has further submitted that  Consumer Protection Act  is  in addition and not in derogation to the other prevalent acts. So this commission has the jurisdiction  to try and hear the present complaint. 

                                         According to the O.P.,  if there is any dispute inter se member and the society, it has to be resolved through  arbitration  as per Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002.  But it has not been specified from the side  of  O.P.  as to  who will be the arbitrator and   the location  of the  Arbitration court  where  the aggrieved person  can file his or her complaint for redressal.  Again  though the O.P. has claimed that the complainant is  a member of the society but the  complainant has denied that fact and has claimed herself as a consumer.  In section 3 of the Societies Act it has been specifically stated that “ any person eligible for membership of a multi-state co-operative society may, on his application, be admitted as a member by such society.”  So it is clear that without application being made by any person he can not be made  a member of the society.   On the other hand,  from the side of O.P.  nothing has been submitted to show that the complainant applied for taking membership of the society by putting his/her signature or thumb impression.   Again  if we go through the Consumer Protection Act we find that  in section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986  and in section 100  of the Consumer Protection Act,2019  (as  Amended ) it has been stated in clear and unambiguous terms  that the remedy before the consumer Forum/ Commission is in addition to and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts.   As  such , according to us, even if there is arbitration clause in the Society Act, the consumer complaint  is maintainable  as  it is  an  additional remedy.

                                             Both parties during the course of argument relied the case laws of the Hon’ble State Commissions and Hon’ble National Commissions which are in their favour.There are also conflicting decisions of the State Commissions and National Commission  on the point  whether a complaint of the instant case  is maintainable under the C.P.  Act or the dispute shall be decided only under the provision of the Society’s Act.  In  the  caselaw ‘ Smt. Kalawati & Ors.  Vrs. M/S  United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.’  the  Hon’ble  National Commission clearly opined that a complaint in the nature of the present case  is  maintainable under CPA.  In this case law the National Commission  referred previous decision of the Commission in the case of Neela Vasant Raje Vs. Amogh Industries and anr. 1986-95 consumer 446  where the commission  had taken a view that  with reference to  section  2(1)(d) of CPA that where a company or firm invites deposites 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.   But the same National Commission in another case law ‘Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs.  The Managing Director, The  Koothattukulam  Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.’  reported in  (2013)4 CPJ  333 (NC)   on the point ‘ whether a Member can pick up a conflict with Co-operative  Society, under the Consumer Protection Act’  opined in the negative and asked the petitioner/complainant to seek his/her grievances before the appropriate forum, except the consumer forum.  However,  in  view of the  above contradictory decisions of the National Commission  we feel it convenient and appropriate  to rely  on  the   caselaw  - “The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society  Vs.  M.  Lalitha (Dead) Through  Lrs.  And Ors.”  reported  in  (2004)  AIR (SC) 448 , decided by the Division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  wherein  in para (21)  it has been observed that “ Thus having regard to all aspects we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of  disputes to arbitration  shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable. The National Commission , however,  did not take note of the fact that , the State Commission had not decided the other contentions raised in the  appeals on merits.  We are inclined to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant  for remanding the case  to the State Commission for deciding the other issues on merits while affirming that  the complaints before the District Forum made by the respondents were  maintainable  and the district forum had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. In this view, while affirming the order of the National Commission as to the maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the Act, we remand the appeals to the State Commission for their adjudication on other issues on  merit  without going to the question of maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the 1986 Act.”  As such in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caselaw referred above it must be held that a remedy under consumer protection Act  is a remedy in addition to the remedy  provided under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and a  complaint under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable. 

                                   In the case  the  opposite parties have  taken  the plea that  due to the embargo put by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court upon the O.P.  Society  they are not in a position to  release the money of the complainant.  But  to substantiate this plea they have submitted nothing.   Another stand  taken by the  O.P.  is  that maturity amount could not be released as the complainant did not complete the required formalities.  But  after going through  the statements of the complainant in respect of the demand placed  before the  O.P.  for payment of the maturity amount  and  the issuance of legal notice,  this plea of the O.P .  appears to be  vague  and their  inaction  in this regard  shows   illegal denial  of  the payment  of  hard earned money of the complainant even after  the date of maturity in this or that excuse.

                                                  In view of the above, it is hold that this complaint is maintainable and  the complainant is entitled to get relief(s)  in this case.  Accordingly,  it is ordered that  the O.Ps.  Sahara India Credit Co-operative  Society Ltd.  shall  pay to the complainant the  remaining maturity amount after excluding the amount already paid  in respect of  Ext.1, Ext. 2, Ext. 3, Ext.4, Ext.-5  certificates and also in respect of other claims of deposits made in the case   alongwith  further interest on the amount  from the date of maturity till the date of this judgment  as per stipulated rate of interest as admissible under the Society’s  rules. In addition, the  O.Ps. Society shall also pay to the complainant  an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards compensation  for mental agony, pain and disservice  and another amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for cost of the proceeding.  It is further ordered that the entire amount shall be payable within a period of  next  90(ninety) days else  interest @ 10% per annum would be accrued on the entire amount from the date of judgment till realisation of the amount.  However, if  required  the O.Ps. may ask the complainant to submit the  original copy of certificate/passbook etc. and the complainant  shall  submit the same accordingly. With the above the case stands allowed on contest against the O.ps.

                                      The judgment is delivered on this  29th day of October  with our seal and signature.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Kamal Kumar Sarda]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Deepanita Goswami]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.