Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/128

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay chawla Adv

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 128 dated 10.03.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 17.08.2022. 

 

Mandeep Singh son of Surinder Singh, r/o. V. Kohara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lakhnow, Uttar Pradesh-226024 through its President/Chairman/Authorized Person.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited having its authorized centre at Sahara India Pariwar F.C. Office, 4372, Ground Floor, Swarn Complex, Gaispur Road, Lohara, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.                                                                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of 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. Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the month of October 2018, the complainant invested Rs.3,26,764/- with the OPs who issued certificates bearing No.787002142245. The said deposit had the maturity      value of Rs.3,82,641/- with date of maturity as 26.04.2020. After the date of maturity, when the complainant approached the OPs for receiving the amount of the deposit, he was told that the company was in a financial crisis and was not in a position to make the payment to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,82,641/- along with interest and the OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.

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 nor the complainant is a consumer. According to the OPs, the relation between the complainant and the OPs is that of member and society. According to the OPs, in case of the dispute between the member and the society, as per the provisions of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant formally did not tender any evidence. However, an affidavit of the complainant Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 are there on the file.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs also did not formally tender any evidence. However, an affidavit of Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta, authorized representative of the OPs is on the file.

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

6.                It has been categorically stated by the complainant in para No.3 of the complaint that he invested Rs.3,26,764/- with the OPs who issued a certificate, copy of which is Ex. C2. It has also been claimed that when the complainant approached the OPs after the date of maturity on 26.04.2020, they refused to make the payment. These facts have not been controverted in para No.3 of the written statement by the OPs nor it has been specifically denied that the complainant invested Rs.3,26,764/- with the OPs. It is well settled that the facts which are not specifically disputed or controverted are deemed to have been admitted as correct. Therefore, it stands  proved that the OPs were liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.3,26,764/- to the complainant. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,26,764/- along with interest @8% per annum from October 2018 till the actual payment along with composite costs and compensation 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, she is required to get her grievance redressed by availing remedy under Cooperative Societies Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil court including that of this Commission. 

8.                We have considered the above contentions of the counsel for OP1 and OP2 but have found the same to be not tenable. 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 case, there is also a reference 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 likewise. 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 the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.3,26,764/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum  from 26.10.2018 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite 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:17.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Mandeep Singh  Vs Sahara Credit                                  CC/21/128

Present:       Sh. Ajay Chawla Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of Rs.3,26,764/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum  from 26.10.2018 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite 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:17.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.