JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The case of the complainant , in brief, is that complainant Kamar Uddin Laskaron 31/12/2016 deposited an amount of Rs.89,500/- ( Rupees eighty nine thousand five hundred) only with the Opposite Party Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. in account number72906700338. The period of maturity was one year commencing from 31/12/2016. But on maturity the complainant did not pay the amount. That after 02/01/2018 the collection was closed by the O.P. No.-3. That the complainant demanded the O.Ps. for payment of the maturity amount but they did not pay any heed. Even legal notice was issued. According to the complainant, theo.Ps. are bound to pay the maturity amount of Rs.89,500/- alongwith bonus and penal interest etc. By not paying the amount in time inspite of repeated demands the O.Ps. have thereby caused disservice. Under the circumstances the complainant has, therefore, prayed for passing an award for an amount of Rs. 89,500/- alongwith maturity benefits accrued till 02/01/2018 and interest @18% over the total maturity amount till date, an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for disservice and for cost of the proceeding etc.
The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have jointly filed written statement stating interalia that there is no cause of action of this case, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and manner etc. It has been stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. He simply shared his money for furtherance of the objects of the society. 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. Under the circumstances thecontesting O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case. The O.P. No.-3 did not contest the case.
In support of the case the complainant has submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1 and has also exhibited some documents. On the other hand, evidence on affidavit of one Sri SudipChakravarty, Sector Manager 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 his evidence asPW-1 , the complainant, has reterated the same facts as has been narrated in the complaint petition. PW-1 has averred that on 31/12/2016 he deposited an amount of Rs.89,500/- ( Rupees eighty nine thousand five hundred) only with the Opposite Party Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. in account number 72906700338 andthe period of maturity was one year commencing from 31/12/2016. But on maturity the complainant did not pay the amount. That after 02/01/2018 the collection was also closed by O.P. No.-3. According to PW-1, he demanded the O.Ps. for payment of the maturity amount but they did not pay any heed. For that purpose he also issued legal notice to the O.Ps. According to PW-1, the O.P. Society is bound to pay the maturity amount of Rs.89,500/- alongwith bonus and penal interest etc. PW-1 has exhibited the photocopy of Receipt of deposit vide Receipt No.-080 638997801 as Ext.-1 (proved in original) , the photocopy of passbook bearing Account No.-72906700338 as Ext.-2 (proved in original), the photocopy of notice dated 26/11/2019 as Ext.-3 (proved in original) and the photocopy of postal receipts as Ext.-4 (proved in original). On the other hand, in his evidence DW-1 , however, has not disputed the claim of PW-1 regarding opening of the account, deposit of money and the date of maturity. But DW-1 has denied the allegations levelled by PW-1. 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.
In the present caseOpposite Party Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. has not disputed the claim of the Complainant in respect of his 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 himself 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 Society’s 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 he 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 himself 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 as well as 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 thecaselaw Smt. Kalawati&Ors. Vrs. M/S UnitedVaish 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 NeelaVasantRaje 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 Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. shall pay to the complainant the maturity amount in respect to Ext.-2 (proved in original) passbook alongwith further interest on the maturity 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 27th day of July with our seal and signature.
