Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/479/2022

Jangsher Sharma s/o sh.Harbhajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

AP Sharma

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                Complaint No.479 of 2022.

                                                Date of institution:1.12.2022.

                                                Date of decision:1.3.2023.

 

Jangsher Sharma son of Sh.Harbhajan r/o #147, Paunti, Dhin (143) Dhin, Barara, Distt. Ambala.

                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                Versus.

 

1. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024 through its Authorised Signatory/Managing Director.
2. Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, near Reliance Petrol Pump above Dhiman Furniture, 1^st floor, Bye Pass Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Managing Director.
3. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited 2^nd floor, SCO 84A, Phase-5, Sector-58, Shahi Majra, Mohali (Punjab) through its Area Manager.  

                                                                                         ….Respondents.

 

CORAM:    GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT. 

                    DR. BARHM PARKASH YADAV, MEMBER.

                    GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. AP Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                  Opponents No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

                  (Notice of complaint was not ordered against opponent No.3).

 

ORDER:

 

1.            This is complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.           Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3, brief facts of the complaint are, the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Luchnow (for short Society) is registered under the provisions of the Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Act, 2002 (for short Society Act) and the Society is having one of its branch offices at Yamuna Nagar (for short “opponent No.2”), the complainant invested an amount of Rs.23607/- on 27.3.2018 by way of FDR Ex.C.2 and the opponent agreed to pay Rs.27644/- on 27.9.2019 as maturity amount qua FDR Ex.C.2, but the opponents failed to make the payment of the same on the date of maturity and thereafter, which according to the complainant, is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent society, which caused him mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constraining him to file the present complaint.

3.            On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponents No.1 & 2 failed to appear before this Commission, either in person or through any Advocate, nor filed written statement within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the complaint, hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.1.2023 and 9.1.2023, respectively.

4.            Sh. AP Sharma, Adv. for the complainant, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant and in order to support his contentions, he kept reliance on case law titled Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC); M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018. 

5.        There are two moot questions before the Commission, first, whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission, secondly, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent and against whom? 

6.             Since, the opponents No.1 & 2 failed to appear this Commission and to file their defence version, despite receipt of notice from this Commission, the version goes un-rebutted. There is no dispute, as per FDR Ex.C2, the complainant is the member of the Society.  In the law cited (Supra) by the counsel for the complainants, in case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative, Revision Petition Nos.823 to 826 of 2001 (NC) is by Three Members of the National Commission, New Delhi, it has clearly been held “the Member of the Society has certain rights in the Society like attending its meeting and right to vote. A member is a separate entity from the Co-operative Society which is just like a shareholder as in the company registered under the Companies Act, 1986. Here is the society of which the complainants are members, invited deposits and pays interest and is to refund the amount with interest on maturity. Society provides facilities in connection with financing and is, certainly, rendering services to its members and here is a member who avails of such services. When there is a fault on the part of the society and itself is not paying the amount on fixed deposit receipts, on maturity, there is certainly deficiency in service by the society and a complaint is maintainable against society by the members as complainant”. 

7.          Moreover, the remedy to raise grievance by the consumer is an additional remedy even, there was Arbitration clause as envisaged under section 100 of the Act. View of this Commission is fully supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D.O.D. 10^th December, 2018. Considering the law cited (supra) by the counsel for the complainant and law cited (Supra) laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of M/s Emaar Mgf Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017, D/d 10^th December, 2018, the complainant falls within the definition of the Consumer for the purpose of this complaint and this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

8.            Coming to the second question, the complainant invested Rs.23607/- on 27.3.2018 which had become Rs.27644/- on its date of maturity i.e. 27.9.2019, fact is reflected from FDR Ex.C.2, but the opponent Society failed to pay the same to the complainant till date and the opponents kept the amount of the FDR Ex.C.2 for considerable time, therefore, it is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices. Apart from making payment of maturity amount of Rs.27644/- qua certificate Ex.C.2, the opponents-society is also liable to be burdened with punitive damages and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is awarded against the opponent society to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, financial loss, litigation cost, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

9.         Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is accepted against the opponent-society, holding it liable to make payment of maturity amount in the sum of Rs.27644/- qua FDR Ex.C.2 (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) to the complainant + punitive damages in the sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to compensate the complainant in all heads, total Rs.37644/- (27644+10000) (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand, Six Hundred, Forty Four Only), within the period of two months from the date of this order, in default of it, the opponent-society shall be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum on the total award amount from the date of order till its actual realization.  It is made clear as per legal parlance, the opponents No.1 & 2 is the one and same thing, therefore, it shall be the primarily duty of opponent No.2 to comply with the order at first instance.

10.            File be consigned to the records. 

Dated: 1.3.2023.

 

                                                             (GULAB SINGH)

                                                        Distt. & Sessions Judge (VRS),

                                                                 PRESIDENT,

                                                                 DCDRC, YNR.

 

(GEETA PARKASH)       (DR.BARHM PARKASH YADAV)

   MEMBER.                   MEMBER.

 

 

Typed by Gaphoor Deen, Assistant.