Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/135

Kamaljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saharayn Universal Mult. Society Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.K.Kapila

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 135 dated 30.03.2022.                   

                                    Date of decision: 02.06.2023. 

 

Kamaljeet Kaur aged about 49 years wife of Jatinder Singh, resident of St. No.19, Sahibzada Fateh Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141003.(M:98153-85814).                                                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited having its registered office at 195, Zone-1 in front of D.B.Mall, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pardesh-462023, India through its Authorized Person.

2^nd Address: having its local office at Bal Tower, 2^nd Floor, GT Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana-141003.                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended upto date

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. J.K.Kapila, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the OP advertised for public to get public deposits and also assured to get maximum interest on deposits of maturity. The complainant came under the influence of OP allotted membership No.969876001164 to the complainant. The complainant made deposits with the OP from time to time and OP issued certificates/receipts regarding the receipt of the payments. Schedule of which is as under:-

Certificate No.	Hologram No.	Date	Amount
795000961522	992514162072	30.06.2016	Rs.10,000/-

 

Further, it has been submitted that at the time of depositing the above said amount, it was assured to the complainant that he will be entitled to double for the amount as deposited by him after expiry of64 months. At the time of deposit of the said amount, OP has failed to supply any of their terms and conditions, by laws and objects. On the completion of the maturity period/expiry period of 64 months, the complainant approached the opposite party to make the payment of maturity amount but OP has always postponed the matter on one or other false pretext and till date, no communication has been received by the complainant. A legal notice dated 10.02.2022 served upon the OP but despite receipt of the said notice, OP failed to make the payment and also failed to send any reply to the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint asserting that the act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and further prayed for directing the OP to pay the claim of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. The complainant also claimed interest @18% per annum on the abovesaid amount.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who filed a joint written statement. The opposite party took a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party is a society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” (hereinafter called as Act) and the complainant being member of the society cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party also further took the objection that there exists an Arbitration clause as contemplated in the Section 84 of the said Act, the dispute is liable to be referred to the Arbitrator. On merits, the opposite party could not deny the investment made by the complainant with it. However, the payment if any made, the same was strictly payable as per terms and conditions of the contribution. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record copy of certificate No.795000961522 issued by the opposite party as Ex. C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are the copies of contribution receipts, Ex.C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 10.02.2022 sent by counsel for the complainant to the OP, Ex.C4 and Ex.C6 are the copies of postal receipts and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sunil Kumar, Authorized Representative of opposite party and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and also perused and examined the record and following points of determination arises there from:-

(i) Whether the complainant being the member of Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited was required to avail the remedy provided under this Act instead of filing the present complaint?

(ii) Whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so, its effect?

6.                The counsel for the opposite party had vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant can only be redressed by availing remedy under the Act which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court including that of this Commission. In support of the arguments, he relied upon the following citations:-

a.         M/s. Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs The Managing Director of Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 decided on 02.09.2013

b.        2017(2) C.P.R. 246 in Andhra Bank and others Vs Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam and another

c.         1998(1) C.P.C. 675 in Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited Vs Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase

d.        Smt. Paramita Deb Vs The Sector Head in Case No.A.2.2021 decided on 10.05.2021 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant contends that the existence of alternative relief does not bar the complainant to avail remedies under the Consumer Protection Act.

8.                We have considered the contentions of the counsel for both the parties and are of the opinion that there is a force in the contentions of the counsel for the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act being a special enactment created an additional remedy in favour of the consumers to raise consumer disputes before the Consumer Commissions constituted under this Act. Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In this regard, a reference can be made the 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 Co-operative 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 regard, a reference can also be made to the law laid down in decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Society vs. M. Lalitha, 2004 (1) SCC 305 whereby also it was held that the remedy available under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for redressal of disputes are in addition to the remedy available under the Co-operative Societies Act and Section 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot stand in the way of filing a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that against the Cooperative Society, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

9.                It was the bounden duty of the opposite party to honour the contractual obligation within the stipulated time. Even the opposite party has not specifically denied the investment made by the complainant with it nor lead any evidence in this regard. The act and conduct of the opposite party firstly in inducing the complainant by lucrative offer to invest her hard earned money and then subsequently delaying agreed payment amounts to deficiency of service. Rather it appears that the opposite party had dishonest intentions to cheat since the inception of the dealing between the parties. 

10.              Moreover, it has also not been disputed that as per certificate Ex.C1, the complainant invested a total sum of  Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party and in this regard, contribution receipt Ex.C2 issued by the Opposite party to the complainant has also been placed on record by the complainant. This fact has not been specifically denied by the opposite party in the written statement. It is settled that if the fact is not specifically denied in the written statement, it deemed to be admitted by the opposite party. Even otherwise, it is evident from the certificate Ex. C1 and contribution receipt Ex.C2 that the complainant invested total amount of Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party on 30.06.2016 respectively. However, the amount of maturity and date of maturity is not mentioned on the certificate Ex. C1 and contribution receipt Ex.C2. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite party is made to refund the total invested amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @8% per annum  from 30.06.2016 till date of actual payment along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the total invested amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @8% per annum  from 30.06.2016 till date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma