Complaint filed on: 17-09-2019

                                                      Disposed on:23-06-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.160/2019  

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, 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

Complainant: -                    

Y.S.Prabhu

S/o late Y.N.Siddalingaiah

Aged about 60 years,

Near Varadaraja temple,

Yediyur post,

Kunigal taluk  

Tumakuru district

(By Sri.Kaliraju, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Sector office,

1^st floor, Vijaya complex, S.S.Puram main road, Tumakuru-572 102

2. Sahara O Shop Unique Products Range Limited Sahara India Bhavan 1, Kapoorthala complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226 024

(OP No.1 and 2-By Sri.M.Balakrishna Bhat, Advocate)

ORDER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs) to make the payment of maturity amount pertaining to the investment together with interest at the rate of 18% p.m. and also direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000-00 towards the general damage for mental shock and agony to the complainant. 

2. The complainant had invested the following amount with the OPs’ firm under the scheme “W.Shop Plan-H [Plan H]; (a) Rs.4850-00 deposited on 23-5-2012 vide certificate No.071013875668, (b) Rs.25,550-00 deposited on 10-12-2012 vide certificate No.562000268382 (issued by the 1^st OP) and (c) Rs.25,550-00 vide certificate No.071025918851(issued by the 2^nd OP). The maturity date was 23-5-2018 and 10-12-2018 respectively. The details of certificate number, investment amount, maturity date is in the below table;    

3. The complainant has approached the OPs for release of matured amount pertaining to the above investment but the OPs are dodging the same on one or the other reason. Thereafter the complainant has got issued legal notice through his counsel on 28-12-2018/10-5-2019 as per post receipt calling upon the OPs to pay the maturity amount with interest, the 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% per annum, compensation etc.,   

4. The OPs have filed written version admitting the investment made by the complainant and its maturity amount as mentioned in the complaint. The OPs denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint. It is the case of OPs that the complainant is not consumer and these OPs are not service provider as such the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant being member of the OPs 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 member of the society and if he has 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 complaint is liable to be dismissed. On amongst other grounds, the OPs asked to dismiss the complaint.     

          5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of OPs one R.Srinivas, Manager, Tumkur Branch filed affidavit evidence.

          6. We have perused the complaint and documents produced by the complainant, evidence of complainant, version and OPs evidence and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs not returning back the invested amount with interest after the maturity date?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

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

Point No.1: In the affirmative   

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

REASONS

          8. Point No.1 to 2: The OPs have not disputed the investment made by the complainant on 23-5-2012 and 10-12-2012. The OPs themselves admitted the investment made by the complainant in the para no.2 of their version. The OPs have further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as there is agreement between the complainant and society to refer any dispute between them to arbitrator. The OPs have urged that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the Co-operative Society.   

9. The learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the case of Ms.Anjana Abraham Chembethil –vs- The M.D, the Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd-(2013) SCC online NCDRC 775 = (2013) 4 CPJ 333 (NC) wherein referred the case of P.P.Kapoor –vs- Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., I (1999) CPJ 81 wherein it was held in para seven of 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. 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 fora as per law.

          11. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society –vs- M.Lalitha (Dead) through LRs and others, 2004 (1) CLT 456 in which in para-11 and 12 of the judgment 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 though 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 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 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”   

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 OPs rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission 2013 SCC online NCDRC 775 (cited supra) not applicable 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 CP Act as such the complaint filed by the complainants against the OPs society is maintainable before this Forum.

13. The learned counsel the OPs has urged that there is agreement between the complainant-members and OPs 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. The learned counsel for the complainants have bought to the Forum/Commission notice the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court-Review petition (c) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017-M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited –vs- Aftab Singh. The Civil Appeals had been filed by the appellant M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited challenging the order dated 13-7-2017 passed by Larger Bench of the 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 28-8-2017 passed by single Member of the NCDRC dismissing the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant. Review petitions filed by the appellant came to be dismissed on 10-12-2018 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 13-2-2018. In view of the decision of the Apex Court of India there is no force in the contention of the OP society that the complaints are not maintainable for not referring this dispute to arbitrator.

15. The complainant has produced Ex-P1 to Ex-P3 certificates issued by the OPs for investment made on 23-5-2012 and 10-12-2012. These certificates contained investment amount, date of maturity, investment date, certificates number but not shown maturity amount. In all three exhibits the complainant has invested for 72 months. Exs-P1to P3 certificates issued by the OPs clearly show that the complainant has invested the amount of Rs.4,850-00 on 23-5-2012, Rs.25,500-00 on 10-12-2012 and Rs.25,500-00 on 10-12-2012 respectively. These certificates prove that the OPs have agreed to repay the deposited amount with accrued interest on the maturity date i.e. 23-5-2018 and 10-12-2018. The maturity amount has not shown/written in the certificates issued by the OPs as such complainant prays for maturity amount with interest @ 18% p.m. on the deposit or investment amount. Now nationalized bank rate of interest has been reduced as such the complainant is entitled for interest @ 10% p.a.  on the deposited amount of Rs.4,850-00,Rs.25,550-00 and Rs.25,550-00 from 23-05-2012 till  the date of payment.

16. It was bounden duty of the OPs to return back the maturity amount to the complainant immediately after expiry of maturity date or at least after the service of Ex-P4 and Ex-P5 legal notice dated 28-12-2018. The act of the OPs not returning back the matured amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The OPs shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000-00 as the complainant has suffered mental agony for not return of  the invested amount even after maturity date. Further the OPs shall liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000-00. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed with costs. 

The OPs are directed to return back the deposited amount of Rs.55,950-00 with interest @ 10% p.a. on the said amount from 23-5-2012 till its payment.

It is further ordered that the OPs shall liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000-00 and Rs.10,000-00 as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order. Otherwise, said amount carries interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.          

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of June, 2021).

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                PRESIDENT