Complaint filed on: 16-04-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 23-06-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.90/2019 to CC.No.94/2019 

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: -                    

CC.No.90/2019 to CC.No.94/2019

H.R.Nagesh

S/o Raghavendrachar.H

Srivathsa, Sri Hari Gurugala

Sannidhana,

Hanumanthapura,

Tumakuru

(By Sri.B.A.Gururaja, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite party:-       

The Sector Manager,

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, 2^nd Cross, S.S.Puram, Tumkur-572 102

(By Sri.M.Balakrishna Bhat, Advocate)

COMMON ORDER

SRI.KUMARA.N, MEMBER

These complaints are filed under Section 12 0f the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party (herein after referred to as OP) to make the payment of fixed deposit amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. till payment, Rs.20,000=00 in each case as compensation for mental agony, other incidental charges and cost of the litigation. 

2. The complainant in CC.No.90/2019 to CC.No.94/2019 is one and the same. The relief claimed in all the complaints is similar and defense taken by the OP is one and the same hence, to avoid repetition of facts and law this common order.

3. The details of account number, invested amount, maturity date and maturity amount of the complainant is in the below table.

4. The complainant has approached the OP for repayment of the invested amount before maturity date, but there was no response from the OP. There after the complainant has got issued notice through their learned counsel on 20-2-2019 calling upon OP to pay the maturity amount with interest, the later despite the service of notice neither replied nor complied with notice. Hence, these complaints to direct the OP to pay the maturity amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, compensation etc.   

5. The OP in all the cases filed written version by taking same nature of defense. The OP admitted the investment made by the complainant and its maturity amount as mentioned in the complaints. The OP denied rest of the allegations made in the complaints. It is the case of OP that the complainant is not a consumer and this OP is not service provider as such the complaints are not maintainable. The complainant being member of the OP 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 these complaints. Further the OP quoted the Hon’ble National Commission decision in Revision petition No.4871 of 2012 M/s Anjana Abraham Chembethi –v/s The Managing Director, The Koothrrukulam Farmers Services Co-Operative Bank decided on 2-9-2013 held that dispute between member and society is not a consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between Co-operative Society and its members and on this count complaints are liable to be dismissed. On amongst other grounds, the OP asked to dismiss the complaints.     

          6. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Annexure-1 to 4 in all the complaints. On behalf of OP one R.Srinivas, Manager, Tumkur Branch filed affidavit evidence. The OP in all the cases filed IA U/s 13 (3) (b) and 12 (1) (c) of CP Act prays for an order of dismissing the complaint in all cases as not maintainable. Further the complainant filed objection to IA U/s 13 (3) (b) and 12 (1) (c) of CP Act.

          7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the   learned counsel for the complainant and OP and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

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

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8. 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

          9. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainant Sri.B.A.Gururaja submitted that the OP has not disputed investment made by the complainant on 29-4-2006 and 15-6-2006. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no bar or restriction under the Consumer Protection Act to file complaints against Co-operative society. As against this, the learned counsel for the OP Sri.M.Balakrishna Bhatt have vehemently argued that the complaints are not maintainable as there is agreement between the complainant and society to refer any dispute between them to arbitrator. The learned counsel for the OP has urged that complaints are not maintainable before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission/Forum against the Co-operative Society.

10. The learned counsel for the OP relied upon the case of Ms.Anjana Abraham Chembethil –vs- The Managing Director, 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 its 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”.                 

          11. 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.

          12. 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”   

13. 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 OP 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 complaints filed by the complainant against the OP society are maintainable before this Forum.

14. The learned counsel the OP has urged that there is agreement between the complainant/member and OP 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.

15. The learned counsel for the complainant has 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 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 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.

16. The complainant has produced Annexure-1 certificates in all the cases issued by the OP for investment made on 29-4-2006 and 15-6-2006. These certificates contained investment amount, date of maturity and maturity amount. The complainant in CC.No.90/2019 to CC.No.94/2019 has invested the amount for 12 years. If the maturity amount mentioned in the certificates issued by the OP indicate that the society has calculated interest @ 11% p.a. on the deposit or investment amount of the complainant. Now the bank rate of interest has been reduced as such the complainant is entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till payment.

17. It was the bounden duty of the OP to return back the maturity amount to the complainant immediately after expiry of maturity date or at least after the service of Annexure-2 legal notice dated 20-2-2019. The OP though received Annexure-2 notice has failed to comply the same. The act of OP not returning back the invested amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The OP shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 in each case as the complainant has suffered mental agony for not return of  the invested amount even after maturity date. Further the OP shall liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00 in each case. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaints filed by complainant bearing CC.No.90/2019 to 94/2019 are allowed with costs. 

The OP is directed to pay Rs.30,000=00, Rs.27,000=00, Rs.3,000=00, Rs.15,000=00 and Rs.15,000=00 respectively in each case to the complainant in CC.No.90/2019 to CC.No.94/2019 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 29-6-2018 in CC.No.90/2019 to CC.No.92/2019 and from 15-08-2018 in CC.No.93/2019 and CC.No.94/2019 till its payment.

It is further ordered that the OP shall liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000=00 in each case and RS.10,000=00 as litigation cost in each case 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 complaints till the date of payment.

Place the original order in CC.No.90/2019 and copy of the order in CC.No.91/2019 to 94/2019.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party 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