Avtar Singh vs Sahara India Real Estate Corportion Limited

Daily Order DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR JUDICIAL COURT COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, SANGRUR Complaint Case No.

CC/186/2022 Avtar Singh Vs.

Sahara India Real Estate Corportion Limited and Others BEFORE: Sh.

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill PRESIDENT Mrs.

Sarita Garg MEMBER Kanwaljeet Singh MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 04 May 2023 Order Shri Paramveer Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv. for Ops.

1.

Arguments on the application seeking dismissal of the complaint taken up.

2.

Heard.

3.

Present applicant/Ops have averred that it was none other but the complainant himself who had contacted the office of the present applicant/Ops seeking membership of their society that too after becoming aware of all the rules, regulations, bye-laws and objects of the said society and acquired membership thereof voluntarily.

That being so, it was only after complainant having acquired this status of being a member that he got the right to participate in the schemes of the OP/society.

This is how complainant became a member of the society as such he cannot legally treat himself to be a consumer, as such the question of any such relationship being a consumer and service provider between the complainant and that of the society does not arise.

As a consequence thereof, the dispute between the complainant and that of the Ops does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

In support of its contention, the Ops have relied upon what was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4871 of 2012 Anjana Abraham Chembethil Vs.

The Managing Director, Koothattukulam Farmers Services Cooperative Bank Ltd. that the dispute between the member and a society is not a consumer dispute which can be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the dispute arising between the cooperative society and its members and as such, present complaint deserves dismissal.

4. missal.

4.

On the other hand, the complainant has alleged that he never contacted the Ops seeking their membership rather the fact of matter is that some authorised agent of the Ops were instrumental in alluring and persuading him to invest with them in the shape of fixed deposits as the same would entail higher interest and this is how the complainant became a victim of false assurances.

There was no occasion for the complainant having ever becoming member of the OP/society as no resolution was ever adopted by the latter and even the complainant was not made to write his signatures at any place ever, therefore, the complainant happens to be a consumer vis-à-vis OPs which can always be treated to be the service provider and as such when Ops failed to repay the amount so invested by the complainant that undoubtedly can said to be deficiency in service on their part and this is how the complainant was prompted to approach this Forum/Commission seeking redressal of his grievance.

In addition to this, the authorised counsel of the complainant also relied upon what was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a Civil Appeal No.92 of 1998 decided on 11.12.2003 observed that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to the remedy under the other Act.

5.

At the very outset, it is significant to note that the present applicant/Ops has termed themselves to be a registered society and has further alleged present complainant to be a member thereof but surprisingly enough, no material is forthcoming from the side of the applicant/Ops showing as to how and when the present respondent/complainant intended to became a member of the society or what resolution was adopted on their behalf thereby conferring the status of the member upon the complainant. mplainant.

Until and unless, it could be indicated from the documents relied upon by the Ops, contention raised by them that the complainant to be a member of the society cannot be accepted and precisely for this reason, with due respect, the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, could not be pressed into service to fortify its contention.

6.

On the other hand, we will have to believe that the complainant was approached by some of the officials of the Ops inviting him to invest in various schemes prevailing or floated by the Ops on account of their offering additional interest and this is how complainant happen to invest the disputed amount.

As such, in view of inability of the Ops to prove in a crystal clear manner that their’s was a society and the complainant acquired membership thereof vide particular resolution of a particular date and thereafter invested the amount, so the stand putforth by the complainant will have to prevail.

Added thereto observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while disposing of Civil Appeal No.92 of 1998 decided on 11.12.2003 titled as Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agriculture Credit Society versus M.

Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts, also shows that taking the worst case, even if for arguments sake, there existed a relationship of member and society between the complainant and that of the OP even then the complainant could not be debarred from seeking indulgence of this Commission for redressal of grievance after the Ops failed to repay the maturity value despite expiry of due date.

7.

So for all these reasons, present application does not hold any water and as such stands dismissed.

8.

Arguments have been heard in the main case.

9.

Vide separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed.

File be consigned to records. [ Sh.

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill] PRESIDENT [ Mrs.

ENT [ Mrs.

Sarita Garg] MEMBER [ Kanwaljeet Singh] MEMBER