Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/485

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay chawla Adv

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 485 dated 22.10.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 03.11.2022.

Ravinder Singh son of Lal Ji Singh, resident of House no.135, Rajinder Singh Multani House, Sahnewal Road, Kohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its registered office at Mangal Jyoti-101, 227/2, AJC Boss Road, Kolkata (West Bengal)-700020 through its Chairman/President/Authorized Representative

2. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its authorized centre at F.C. Office, Shop No.14-15, Chandni Complex, Opp. Star Mega Mat, Focal Point Road, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of July 2018, an agent of the OPs approached the complainant and allured him to deposit his savings with the OPs. On his representation, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.7650/- and Rs.14,150/-in the plan of the OPs who issued two certificates No.438001308902, No.438001308903 and membership No.60658000269. The said deposited amount was to be matured on 26.07.2020 with maturity value of Rs.94,032/-.  After the maturity period, the complainant requested the OPs to release the maturity amount but the OPs started dillydallying and kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to release the maturity amount by saying that due to financial difficulties, they are not able to make the payment to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.7650/ as well as Rs.14,150/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has suppressed the material facts while filing the complaint. According to the OPs, OP1 is a Multi-State Cooperative Society framed under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the complainant is a member of the society. Thus, there is a relationship of member and the society between the parties and all the disputes are liable to be resolved under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It has further been pleaded that any dispute between the society and the member is liable to be resolved by getting the same referred to the arbitrator for decision and no court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant invested in the scheme of the society.  The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                At the time of filing the complaint, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3.  

4.                Along with the written statement, the OPs submitted affidavit as Ex. RA of Sh. Ramehwar Singh, authority/signatory of the OPs.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.                It is not disputed and is evident from the record and documents available on the file that as per certificate Ex. C2 and Ex. C3, the OPs were supposed to pay Rs.9596/- and Rs.17,750/-, in all Rs.27,346/- to the complainant on maturity date of 26.07.2020. The said amount was not released by the OPs despite the repeated requests and visits by the complainant. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.27,346/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 26.07.2020 till date of actual payment along with composite cost of Rs.7,000/-.

7.                The counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as the complainant is only a member of the OP Society and being a member, he is required to get his grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the OPs has relied upon Anjana Abraham Vs Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that a member cannot pick up a conflict with Co-operative Society under the Consumer Protection Act as the alternative remedy available under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the dispute arising among committee of Members of Society in respect of the matter relating to affairs of Society, can be proceeded under Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the concerned District Court. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that the consumer jurisdiction is barred where matter is covered under the Cooperative Society Act and, therefore, the order passed by the Consumer Forum was held to be a nullity. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 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 has held that whenever there is a dispute between the member and the society, then the same is to be settled by the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and not by any court.

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for OPs but have found the same to be untenable. In this regard, a reference can be made to law laid down in Mandatai Sambha Ji Pawar and another Vs State of Maharashtra passed in Writ Petition No.117 of 2011 decided on 03.05.2011 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court whereby it has been held that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to the remedy provided under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and other authorities under Consumer Protection Act is not excluded expressly or by necessary implication by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In this regard, a reference can also be made to the law laid down the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held that the remedy available under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for redressal of disputes are in addition to the remedy available under the Co-operative Societies Act and Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act cannot stand in the way of filing a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.27,346/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 26.07.2020 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Ravinder Singh Vs Humara India Credit                         CC/21/485

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Reply to application for dismissal of the complaint not filed. Heard. Since the procedure adopted under The Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature, the application for dismissal of the complaint is disposed of with an observation that the objections taken in the application have already been taken in the written statement and the same shall be adjudicated upon in the main order.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that OPs shall pay the amount of Rs.27,346/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from 26.07.2020 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.