Dispute between member, society falls under CPA: Panel

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 29

In one of the significant judgments, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has held that dispute between a member and a society is a consumer dispute and it falls under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

Stating this, the commission has directed Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sector 22, Chandigarh, to pay the maturity amount, along with a compensation of Rs30,000 for causing mental agony and harassment.

Rakesh Singh, a resident, approached the Commission after the Society failed to give him the maturity amount of the investment made in a scheme floated by the company.

The complainant said he invested money in a scheme of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited. The tenure of the deposit was 18 months. In all, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs1,72,000 with the Society. He was promised a maturity amount of Rs2,00,036 after the completion of the fixed tenure. When he requested the Society to release his maturity amount after the fixed tenure, it kept on dilly-dallying the matter and did not release the money.

In its reply, the Society denied all charges. It also raised the question of the maintainability of this complaint and claimed that the dispute between a cooperative society and its member regarding deficiency in service cannot be maintained under the CPA.

After hearing the arguments, the Commission rejected the contention of the Society. While quoting a judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced in year 2003, the Commission said the Supreme Court had widened the scope of the CPA by holding that disputes between members and their Society can be decided by the Consumer Fora.

The Commission said the Society had floated a scheme by name of “Sahara A. Select” among its members. Hence, the members, who subscribed to the above named scheme of the opposite party (Society), also become its consumers. When there is a fault on behalf of the Society in providing services to its consumers, there is certainly deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

The Commission said in view of this, the Society has been directed to refund Rs2,00,036 to the complainant along with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of respective maturity as per certificates. It also directed to pay Rs30,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment and Rs10,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant.