Facts giving rise to the institution of the instant complaint in brief are that on account of the allurement made by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited `2.00 lacs and `14000/- with them in their fixed deposit scheme. He had been given the assurance by the opposite parties that he would receive `2,32,600/- and `16,282/- on the date of its maturity i.e. 30.12.2018 and 09.3.2019, respectively.

2. The grievance of the complainant is that when after the expiry of the date of maturity, he approached the opposite party for the release of the aforementioned maturity amount, they did not release the payment without any valid reason.

3. So under these circumstances, he approached this Forum by way of instant complaint and thereby sought a direction against the opposite parties, directing them jointly and severally to make payment of the maturity amount of `2,32,600/-, and `16,282/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, and `50,000/- for subjecting him to physical harassment and mental agony, and `30,000/- as litigation charges.

4. In response to the notices issued, opposite parties filed joint reply and therein they raised preliminary objections of locus standi, jurisdiction and cause of action.

5. On merits, they questioned the status of the complainant as a consumer as envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by taking the plea that opposite party No.2 is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, and that the complainant himself had approached the opposite party No.1 and having fully understood the terms and conditions of the scheme of opposite party No.2, had become its member, and opened account under Sahara A Select Scheme for certain period and that as such he could not be held to be their consumer. However, they had not denied that after the expiry of the stipulated period, the account of the complainant had matured but expressed their inability to repay the amount of the complainant due to excessive demand made by the complainant. They had denied that on account of any malafide intention, they had declined to make the payment to the complainant. By making reference to the arbitration clause of the policy of opposite party No.1, which prohibited any member from seeking the redressal of his/her grievance by any other mode than by way of arbitration proceedings, they had taken the plea that the complaint filed by the complainant before this forum was not maintainable, and had thus made a prayer for dismissal of the same with costs.

6. The complainant had not opted to file any rejoinder.

7. However, to lend corroboration to his case, he had tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1 and documents Annexures C-1 & C-2.

8. To controvert the case of the complainant and to lend corroboration to their case, opposite parties had filed affidavit Ex. OPW-

1 of Sh. Ranvir Singh, branch manager of opposite party No.1, and tendered documents Annexures OPA/1 and OPA/2.

9. No evidence in rebuttal had been led on behalf of the complainant.

10. We have heard learned counsels for parties at length and have thoroughly gone through the entire record available on the file.

11. If the nature of the stand taken by the parties in their respective pleadings raised and subsequent evidence produced are taken into consideration, then same go to show that opposite parties had not disputed that the complainant had deposited `2,00 lacs and `14000/- with them, and that as per the copies of certificates Annexures C-1 & C-2, the amount so deposited was to mature on 30.12.2018 and 09.3.2019, respectively, and that on the maturity thereof, they had undertaken to pay `2,32,600/- and `16,282/- to the complainant. However, the opposite parties had questioned the maintainability of the complaint and the jurisdiction of this Forum to hear and decide the instant complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this behalf, they have taken the plea that since the complainant was member of opposite party No.2 and that since the complainant had raised excessive demand upon the maturity amount, so the dispute in question could be resolved only by way of arbitration as per provisions of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. In this behalf, they had also re-produced the provisions of Section 69 of the ibid Act.

12. It is correct that the aforementioned section of the ibid Act inter alia provides that in case any dispute arises between a member(s) and the society, then it has to be referred to the Arbitration Court or the Registrar and that no other authority shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. In this behalf, they had also tried to seek support to their aforementioned contention by relying upon judgment titled as Mrs. Anjana Abraham Chembethil versus The Manager Director, The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., NCDRC 759{(2013) 4CPJ} 333(NC). But while raising the aforementioned contention, the opposite parties appeared to have become oblivious of the fact that opposite party No.2 had admittedly been registered not under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 but under the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002.

13. So in view of the above, it has to be seen as to whether there is any provision in the ibid Act of 2002 which ousts the jurisdiction of this Forum to hear and decide the present complaint. In this behalf, regard has to be had to Chapter IX of the ibid Act. Infact, Section 84 contained therein is relevant from the point of view of the aforementioned proposition.

14. Section 84(1) and Clause (b) of the ibid Section is re-produced verbatim herein under:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any dispute other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a multi-State Co-operative Society against its paid employee, or an industrial dispute as defined by Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947(14 of 1947) touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-State-Co-operative Society arises:- (a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) between a member, past members and persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the multi-State-co-operative Society, its board or any officer, agent or employee of the multi- State-co-operative Society or liquidator, past or present, (c) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (d) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx such dispute shall be referred to arbitration

15. If the provisions of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Section 84(1) of the multi-State-co-operative Society Act, 2002 are taken into consideration, then same go to show that there is a marked difference between the provisions of the aforementioned sections.

16. Section 69 supra provides that if any dispute arises between a member(s) and the society, same has to be determined only by way of arbitration. However, Section 84 supra qualifies the nature of the dispute. It provides that this section shall not only be in applicable to disciplinary action by a multi-State co-operative society against its paid employees or to any industrial dispute as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but shall also not apply to any dispute which does not relate to its constitution, management or business.

17. Admittedly, the dispute in question is neither a dispute pertaining to disciplinary action or an industrial dispute nor does it relate to the constitution or management of the society.

18. Now the question arises as to whether the dispute in question could be held to be a dispute touching the business of the opposite parties? In case it is found to be a dispute touching the business of the opposite parties, then it could be held that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant complaint.

19. To prove this aspect of the case, the opposite parties could have easily produced their bye laws to show as to what were the aims and objects of the society. In other words, whether opposite party No.2 had been constituted with the object to run some business. Admittedly, business includes any commercial activity. But opposite parties had not produced the necessary record with respect to the bye laws of opposite party No.2 nor had they assigned any reason for non-production thereof. Under the given circumstances, the aforementioned document was the best document which could have thrown light on the nature of the business carried on by opposite party No.2. So in the absence of any specific reason assigned in this behalf, an adverse inference could be raised against the opposite parties.

20. Further, opposite parties had placed on record document Annexure OPA-1. This document infact is a form whereby a person could become a member of the opposite parties by opening an account with them. Condition No.1 mentioned under title terms and conditions of this document provides that minimum amount to become a member of the scheme was `5,000/-. But the aforementioned form also does not go to show that the main activity of opposite party No.2 was commercial in nature. Rather, it goes to show that the minimum amount required to get membership of the society, and of its scheme was `5,000/-. However, it had provided additional benefit to the members to get loyalty bonus points on purchase of products from Q- shop. Besides above, opposite party No.2 had undertaken to pay back the necessary amount after 18 months alongwith interest mentioned in Annexures C-1 & C-2. Thus it goes to show that opposite party No.2 had provided an incentive to its members to get their amount back alongwith interest.

21. There is another aspect of the case. Opposite parties had not disputed that they had undertaken to pay back the maturity amount after the expiry of stipulated period. By way of present complaint, the complainant is also simply demanding his maturity amount and further interest thereon after the expiry of the maturity. He had not taken the plea that he was entitled to receive more amount than the maturity amount or that under the terms and conditions of the scheme, he was not entitled to receive the necessary interest in case the payment is not made after the expiry of the stipulated period.

22. The facts of Anjanas case cited supra were quite different from the present one. In that case, the provisions of Section 69 of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 were under consideration. Moreover, in that case, the general body of the opposite party bank had reduced the rate of interest and on the basis of the aforementioned resolution, the opposite party had calculated the maturity amount as per the reduced rate of interest. But in this case, opposite parties had not taken the plea that after depositing of the aforementioned amount, the society had decided otherwise.

23. Further, the opposite party in Anjanaa case supra was a co- operative bank. In other words, the opposite party therein was doing banking business. But in this case, as already observed above, in the absence of necessary record, it cannot be inferred that the society had been incorporated with the sole aim and object to run business as is understood in legal parlance.

24. Admittedly, under the given circumstances, it could be held that opposite parties had provided service as defined by Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the complainant for consideration and that the conduct on the part of the opposite parties in refusing to pay the maturity amount after the expiry of stipulated period, not only amounts to deficiency in service but also indulgence into unfair trade practice.