- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Savitri Devi v. M/s Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant, Savitri Devi, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. and others. The opposite parties are a registered limited company under the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The complainant was advised by the opposite party No. 1 (a branch office) to invest Rs. 20,000 in a contributed scheme for 36 months at Barnala. She was assured that the money was safe and could be withdrawn anytime, even before maturity. The opposite party No. 1 issued a receipt and membership certificate stating withdrawal terms and possible compensation based on the contribution. After 36 months, the complainant requested a refund by submitting original receipts and certificates, but the opposite parties avoided and ultimately refused payment. The complainant sought refund with interest, compensation, and litigation expenses.
The opposite parties appeared and filed a joint written version, raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. They contended the complainant was a member of the society and any dispute should be resolved under the Co-operative Societies Act, not the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant submitted evidence, while the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complainant qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the context of her membership and investment in the cooperative society scheme.
- Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint arising out of a dispute between a cooperative society and its member under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.
- Whether the complaint alleging refusal to refund the invested amount and claiming compensation is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant's Arguments
- The complainant invested Rs. 20,000 in the scheme on the advice of opposite party No. 1, who assured safety of the money and refund at any time, even before maturity.
- The opposite party No. 1 issued receipts and membership certificates evidencing the investment and terms.
- After 36 months, the complainant submitted original documents and requested refund, but the opposite parties refused payment.
Opposite Parties' Arguments
- The complainant is not a 'consumer' as there is no consumer-service provider relationship; she is a member of a cooperative society.
- The complaint is misconceived, baseless, and unsustainable in law.
- The Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to entertain disputes between cooperative societies and their members.
- The complainant voluntarily became a member after understanding terms, conditions, bylaws, and objects of the society.
- The claim for payment is against the terms of the agreement and there is no deficiency in service.
- Relied on precedent from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and relevant statutory provisions to assert that disputes between cooperative societies and members are not consumer disputes.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Anjana Abraham vs. Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2013) CPJ 333 (NC) | Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction over disputes between cooperative societies and their members under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; such disputes fall under the Co-operative Societies Act. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that the present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as the dispute is between a cooperative society and its member. |
| P.P. Kapoor vs. Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. I (1999) CPJ 81 | Disputes arising under the Co-operative Societies Act and its rules fall within the jurisdiction of the Registrar and arbitration courts, excluding other courts or forums. | The court referred to this case to reinforce that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction over disputes between cooperative societies and members. |
| Dilip Bapat & Anr. vs. Panchyati Co-operative Housing Society Limited I (1993) CPJ 68 (NC) | Disputes of this nature are not consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act; remedies lie under the Co-operative Societies Act. | The court cited this authority to affirm that the complainant’s grievance should be addressed under the Co-operative Societies Act and not before the Consumer Forum. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the evidence including receipts and certificates which explicitly identified the complainant as a member of the society. The terms and conditions on the receipts reinforced this membership status. The court noted the absence of any cogent or reliable evidence from the complainant to support her allegations beyond the membership relationship.
Relying on statutory provisions under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and persuasive precedents from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the court emphasized that disputes between a cooperative society and its members fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court or the Registrar. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.
Consequently, the court concluded that the complaint does not constitute a consumer dispute and is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
Holding and Implications
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and non-maintainability before the Consumer Forum.
The direct effect of this decision is that the complainant cannot pursue her grievance under the Consumer Protection Act before the Consumer Forum. She remains at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate forum constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act. The order does not establish any new precedent beyond affirming existing jurisdictional principles.
The complainant namely Savitri Devi has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against M/s Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties are a registered limited company under Multistate Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 vide Regd. No. MSCS/CR/935/2014 and the opposite party No. 1 is branch office of opposite parties. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant to invest in the contributed scheme of the opposite parties. On the advise of opposite party No. 1, the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at Barnala in the above said scheme for a period of 36 months. The opposite party No. 1 further assured the complainant that her money is safe and she can get her money back at any time even before maturity date and the opposite party No. 1 will arrange the money for the complainant at any time. It is further alleged that in this regard the opposite party No. 1 issued receipt and membership certificate to the complainant. As per above said certificate, the member shall be free to withdraw his/her money any time after the expiry of 30 months from the date of payment of the contribution and in such a case the society may compensate the member by giving a benefit on the contribution made by such member on an amount not exceeding Rs. 43,240/- on a contribution of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the form of cash/jewelery etc., as decided by the governing body of society. It is further alleged that after the expiry of 36 months the complainant handed over original contribution receipt/membership form and certificate to the opposite parties and asked for the refund of money. But the opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to pay back the money to complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment
i.e. 5.5.2015 till realization.
2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited and there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between Co-operative Societies and its members under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and shared Rs. 20,000/- on 5.5.2015 vide membership No. 973405000066 under Sahara M Benefit scheme at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of contribution receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copies of certificates Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite parties have failed to adduce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Forum dated 22.10.2019.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that on the advise of opposite party No. 1 (branch office of opposite parties) the complainant invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at Barnala vide Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 for a period of 36 months in the above said scheme of opposite parties through opposite party No. 1 because they assured that the money is safe and the complainant can get her money back at any time even before maturity date and the opposite party No. 1 will arrange the money for the complainant at any time. He further argued that the opposite party No. 1 issued receipt and membership certificate to the complainant and after the expiry of 36 months the complainant submitted/handed over original contribution receipt/membership form and certificate to the opposite parties and asked for the refund of money. But the opposite parties have failed to pay back the money to complainant.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Limited as there is no relation of 'consumer' and 'service provider' between the complainant and opposite parties and the opposite party is a Society duly registered under Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is member of the Society. He further argued that for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between Co-operative Societies and its members under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant herself contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for getting benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become the member and shared Rs. 20,000/- on 5.5.2015 vide membership No. 973405000066.
9. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has relied upon a citation of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi IV (2013) CPJ 333 (NC) in case titled ANJANA ABRAHAM versus KOOTHATTUKULAM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(e), 21(b). Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 Section 69 - Consumer Dispute Conflict of Member with Co-operative Society- Jurisdiction- Dispute of this nature is not consumer dispute under Act, 1986 and right Forum was to have ones remedy under Co-operative Societies Act. In Para No. 3 of the above said citation it is mentioned; As a matter of fact, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to try the disputes arising between Co-operative Societies and its Members. Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, runs as follows:- Chapter IX Settlement of Disputes
69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the first time being in force, if a dispute arises :-
a) among members; past member or person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or
b) between a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of that society; or
c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or
d) between the society and any other society; or
e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it; or
f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person; or
g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or
h) between the society and a creditor of the society; such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Sec.70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other authority, shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. In Para No. 4 of the above said citation it is mentioned; Similar view was taken in the case reported as P.P. Kapoor Vs. Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., I (1999) CPJ 81, wherein it was held in Para 7 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 thereunder, 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 & Anr., Vs. 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. We have gone through the documents placed on record by the complainant to prove her case Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5. It is important to mention here that the word member is clearly written on all these receipts and certificates. Furthermore, we have also gone through the terms and conditions of the scheme which are written on the back side of contribution receipts placed on record by the complainant. Even on all the paras of terms and conditions the word is used as member, which shows that the complainant is a member of society constituted by the opposite parties. We are further of the view that the complainant has become the member of above said society and invested the amount to get the benefit of the scheme. Even the complainant has failed to brought on record any cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence in support of her allegations.
11. In view of the above discussion and in view of the above said citation of the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission, we are of the considered opinion that there is no 'consumer dispute' between the complainant and opposite parties and the present complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek her/his grievance before the appropriate Forum, except the Consumer Fora, as per law. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM: 18th Day of November, 2019 (Kuljit Singh) President (Tejinder Singh Bhangu) Member (Manisha) Member [HON'BLE MR. Sh.Kuljit Singh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Tejinder Singh Bhangu] MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Manisha] MEMBER
Alert