Complaints filed on: 17-12-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 22-09-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CC.No.90/2021

Sri. Y.S. Prabhu S/o Late Y.N.Siddalingaiah,

Aged about 60 years, R/at Near Varadaraja

Temple, Yediyur (Post), Kunigal Taluk,

Tumakuru District, Karnataka.

……….Complainant

(By Sri.Kariraju, Adv.,)

V/s

M.G.Junior College (near)

Sahara Kunigal Branch,

Near IDB Bank, Kunigal Town.

Range Limited Sahara India Bhawan,

Lucknow-556 021.

(OP No.1 by Sri. M.Balakrishna Bhat, Adv.,)

(OP No.2Ex-parte)

                                                :O R D  E R :

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH -  LADY MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act to direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of entire matured amount of Rs.1,19,711/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of maturity till its realization, Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency and negligent act and caused mental harassment rendered by the OPs towards the complainant.

2.       The Opposite Party No.1 is the Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kunigal Branch, Kunigal (herein after called as OP No.1) and Opposite Party No.2 is Sahara Shop Unique Products, Range Limited Sahara India Bhawan, Aliganji, Lucknow (hereinafter called as OP No.2)

3.       The brief facts of the case are as under:-

          The complainant had invested Rs.1,19,711/- on 04.01.2018 vide certificate No.78700078209 under the scheme “shop plan-H (Plan-H)” in the OP – Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd.  The maturity date of deposit was on 04.07.2019.  The complainant is entitled to get the matured amount in his favour.

3(a)    The complainant further submitted that the complainant has approached the OP for repayment of the invested amount after maturity date on several times personally and the said maturity amount is very much required the legal necessity of the complainant.  The OP has not made any arrangements to return the said maturity amount in favour of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice through his counsel on 16.09.2021 calling upon the OP to pay the maturity amount with interest, later despite the service of notice neither replied nor complied with notice.  Hence, this complaint to direct the OPs to pay the maturity amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., compensation etc.

4.       After issuing notice, the OP No.2 has not appeared before this Commission and placed Ex-parte and the OP No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed written version by taking same nature of defence.  The OP No.1 has submitted that the complaint is not disputed except the quantum of the pre-maturity amount as the said amount is only a maturity amount.  Further, the OP denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint.  It is the case of the OP that the complainant is not consumer and this OP not service provider, as such the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant being the member of the OP society registered under, “Multi State Co-Operative Society Act, 2002” as such any dispute between society and member,  consumer complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  The complainant is the member of the society and if they have any grievances with the society, the complainant is bound to refer the dispute before arbitrator as per arbitration agreement.  The complainant instead of approaching the Arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement has filed this complaint and on this count, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  On these among other grounds, the OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

5.       The complainant has filed his affidavit with three documents which are not marked.  On behalf of OP, one Smt. H.S.Mangala, Manager, Kunigal Branch has filed her affidavit evidence. 

6.       In spite of sufficient opportunities OP No.1 has not submitted their arguments.  We have heard the arguments of the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service against the OPs in not returning the invested amount with interest after maturity date?

2. Is complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

7.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: As per final order for the below

:R E A S O N S:

8.       The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP has not disputed investment made by the complainant on 04.01.2018 and OP has only disputed the quantum of the pre-maturity amount as the said amount is a maturity amount.  The learned counsel further submitted that there is no bar or restriction under the Consumer Protection Act to file complainant’s against Co-Operative Society.  As against this, OP has submitted in their version that the complainant is not maintainable as there is agreement between complainant and Society to refer any dispute between them to Arbitrator.  The OP has urged that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the Co-Operative Society. 

9.       The OP has in its version relied upon the case of Ms.Anjana Abraham Chembethi Vs. The Managing Director, Koothrrukulam Farmers Services Co-Operative Bank, (2013) SCC Online NCDRC 775 + (2013) 4 CPJ 333(NC), wherein referred the case of P.P.Kappor V/s Government Servants Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd., I (1999), CPJ 81, wherein it was held in Para Seven of its Judgment as under:

“In our view, the dispute sought to be raised was a dispute arising out of the alleged non compliance of provisions of the Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under, under section 60 of the said Act.  Section 93(1) (c) of the said Act vests jurisdiction in respect of the disputes required to be referred to the Registrar under Section 60. Sub-Rule 3 ousts jurisdiction of “any court on any ground, whatsoever” to question any order/decision or award made under the Act.  In Dilip Bapat V/s Panchyati Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, I (1993) CPJ 68(NC), it was observed in Para-11 of the report that dispute of this nature is not a Consumer dispute under the consumer Protection Act and the right Forum was to have ones remedy under the Co-Operative Societies Act”.

10.     It is further held in the above case as we dismiss the revision petition, but grant opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to seek his/her grievance(s) before the appropriate Forum, except the consumer For a as per law.

11.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-Operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (Dead) through Lrs and others, 2004(I) CLT 456, in which in Para-11 and 12 of the Judgment held as under:

“11. From the statement of objects and reasons and scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is providing for better redressal, mechanism though which cheaper, easies, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers.  To serve the purpose of the Act, various Quasi-Judicial Forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award whereas appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance of their orders.

“12. As per section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being the force.  Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the Consumers better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give measuring to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section-3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar”.

12.     The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the courts, tribunals and Quasi-Judicial authorities in India.  The decision relied upon by the OP rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission 2013 SCC Online NCDRC 775 (Cited Supra) not application since the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has not referred the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.  After amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, the above provision is lies in the Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  As such the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP society is maintainable before this Commission.

13.     The OP No.1 has submitted that there is agreement between the complainant – members and OP Society to refer their disputes before the Arbitrators.  As against this the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that though there may be agreement to refer disputes to Arbitrator, but it is not mandatory in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14.     In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court – Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.23512-28513 of 2017 – M/s Emarr MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh.  The Civil Appeals had been filed by the appellant M/s Emarr MGF Land Limited challenging the order dated:13.07.2017 passed by the Larger Bench of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding the Consumer Disputes to be non arbitrable.  Prayer was also made to set aside the subsequent order dated:28.08.2017 passed by the Single Member of the NCDRC dismissing the application filed under section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant.  Review petitions filed by the Apex Court holding that they do not find that any error has been committed by the NCDRC in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under section 8.  No exception can be taken to the dismissal of the appeals by this court against the judgment of NCDRC.  No ground is made out to review the order dated:13.02.2018.  In view of the decision of the Apex Court of India, there is no force in the contention of OP Society that the complaint is not maintainable for not referring this dispute to arbitrator. 

15.     The complainant has produced the certificate issued by the OP for investment made on 04.01.2018.  This certificate contained investment amount, date of maturity, maturity amount, and payable interest rate. The certificate clearly reflecting the maturity amount is Rs.1,42,121/-.  As per the certificate, the OP/Society has agreed to give maturity amount of Rs.1,42,121/- after maturity date i.e. 04.07.2019.

16.     It was bounden duty of the OP to return the maturity amount to the complainant immediately after expiry of maturity date or at least after the service of legal notice dated:16.09.2021.   The OP though received the legal notice has failed to comply the same.  The act of the OP in not returning the maturity amount invested by the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant has prayed interest @ 18% on the invested amount from maturity date to till realization.  Now the bank rate of interest has been reduced, as such the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till payment.  The complainant has prayed Rs.2,00,000/- as a compensation.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that whether he has entitled for the same amount of compensation.  Hence, it is not considered.  But the OPs have compelled the complainant to approach this Commission.  Hence, the OP shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- as the complainant has suffered mental agony for not return of the invested amount even after maturity date.  Further, the OP shall liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

:O R D E R:

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed partly with cost.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,42,121/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 04.07.2019 till payment.

It is further ordered that the OP No.1 and 2 shall liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order. 

Furnish copy of this order to both parties free of costs immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of September, 2022).

LADY MEMBER                     MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

…