Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/730/2018

Jaspreet Brar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Harpreet Saini

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	730/2018
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	01.10.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Jaspreet Brar aged 69 years wife of Sh.N.S.Brar r/o # 201, Sector 80, Mohali, Tehsil and Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                       

        ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan-1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Utter Pradesh-226024 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

 

2. Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, 3^rd Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by

                None for the complainant

                Sh.Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of the following three connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved:-

1	2	3	4	5	6
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Amount  (in Rs.) and Date of  Deposit	FDR A/c No. & Maturity Date	Maturity Amount (in Rs.)
	730/2018	Jaspreet Brar	6,37,909/-30.08.2017	23975604406 & 24.02.2018	6,79,373/-
	731/2018	Lakhwinder Bikaramjit Singh	3,05,315/- 30.08.2017	239756200225 & 24.02.2018	3,25,160/-
	732/2018	N.S.Brar	70,180/- 30.08.2017   1,38,415/-  30.08.2017	23975604765 & 24.02.2018   23975604415& 24.02.2018	74,742/-     1,47,412/-

2.         The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.730 of 2018-Jaspreet Brar Vs. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and another.
3.         Brief facts of the case are as alleged by the complainant are that he had been depositing his earned money with the OPs for the last some years in the shape of the FDR, which was being renewed after expiry of earlier FDR.  The rate of interest of the FDR was 13.50% p.a. The complainant alleged to have deposited a sum of Rs.6,37,909/- on 30.08.2017 vide FDR A/c No.23975604406 which was matured on 24.02.2018. On maturity of the FDR, the complainant was to get Rs.6,79,373/-. It has further been averred that after maturity date, the complainant had not got renewed the FDR and requested the OPs to pay the maturity amount but the same has not been paid despite his repeated requests and service of the legal notice.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
4.         Upon notice, the OPs put in appearance through Counsel Sh.Nitin Sharma, Advocate.  The OPs have contested the consumer complaint and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being wholly misconceived, vexatious and the complainant is not a consumer and that there is no such relationship of consumer and service provider inter se the complainant and the OPs. It has further been pleaded that the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is of Member and Society and therefore, for any dispute between the society and the Member, the consumer complaint is not maintainable.  It has been admitted that the complainant had shared a sum of Rs.6,37,909/- on 30.08.2017 under Sahara FDR Scheme at Chandigarh.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating her own.
6.         We have heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the OPs and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
7.         The Counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the complaint is not maintainable under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the relation between the complainant and the OPs is of member and the Society. However, we do not find any weight in this submission of the Counsel for the OPs because the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force as provided under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Here our view is also bolstered from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in "Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricutlural Credit Society Versus M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs and others", 2004(1) CLT 456 in which it was held as under:-

“11.          From the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at the district, State and National level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever 'appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalities 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 in 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 meaning 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."

8.         It was also held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported as "Smt. Kalawati and others versus M/s United Vaish Co-operative Thirft and Credit Society Ltd.", 2002(1) CLT 101 in which it was held that:

"Section 3 - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Sections 60 and 93 - Bar of jurisdiction - Deposits - Non payment of by respondent society on maturity to the petitioners who were members of the society - Complaint filed before District Forum against respondent society - Plea of the respondent society that in view of Section 93 of the Societies Act consumer Forum would have no jurisdiction in respect of the dispute - Held that a District Forum is not a Civil Court though it may have the trappings of a Civil Court - Neither it is a revenue court - Do not think that Section 93 of the Societies Act would come in the way of the District Forum in assuming the Jurisdiction.

(ii)            Section 2(1)(d) - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, Sections 60 and 93 - Consumer Deposits - Non payment of by respondent society on maturity to the petitioners who were members of the society - Complaint filed before District Forum against respondent society - Findings by the State Commission that a member cannot be a consumer vis-à-vis the society of which he is a member set aside - Held that complainants were certainly consumers and could maintain their complaints in the District Forum."

9.         The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand and as such it is held that the complaint is maintainable against the OPs under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10.         From the documents on record, it is established that the complainants have deposited the amount(s) by way of FDR with the OPs as mentioned in the aforesaid table and they have failed to refund the same on the maturity of the FDRs to the complainants despite their repeated requests and service of the legal notice, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
11.         Similar facts are pleaded in other connected complaints and similar evidence has been led in them.  Therefore, in all these cases, deficiency in service is proved.
12.         In the result, all these complaints are allowed. The OPs are directed to
    1. refund the maturity amount(s) (as shown in column No.6 of the above table) to the respective the complainants with interest @ 9% from the respective due dates of payments (as shown in column No.5 of the above table) till its payment. 
    2. to pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.

13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01/10/2019

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER