Trinity Multi State Co-operative Credit Society Consumer Complaint

Last Updated on August 11, 2021 by Satish Mishra

This post is about Trinity Multi State Co-operative Credit Society Consumer Complaint where it failed to provide maturity amount.

Unfair Trade Practices ( Daljeet Kumar Bansal v. Trinity Multi State Co-operative Credit Society)

Through this analysis, the author will try to understand the Section 12 of the consumer protection Act. This analysis will provide an in-depth assimilation of the extent of the power the courts enjoy in such cases. It will also highlight the importance of court appearances. Lastly, with the help of the various cases cited in the judgment of this particular case, this analysis will explain the concept of unfair trade practices and lack of service.

Also Read- Refund of Investment Amount

Facts

The complainant had signed an agreement to deposit Rs. 30,000 per month for 21 months for which he was supposed to get Rs. 6,84,222 on maturation. He deposited 17 installments but when he expected to get a maturity amount end the end of the term, he was denied the same by the respondent. The complainant failed the present case on the context of the same on the grounds of unfair trade practice and failure in service. However the respondents failed to appear in the court even after being given prior notice, hence the decision was taken ex-parte, assuming that the respondents had nothing to say in their defense.

Issues Involved

(a) Whether the respondent id guilty of unfair trade practices??

Also Read- Property Related Legal Advice

Rules and Laws

SECTION 12 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT:

Manner in which complaint shall be made.—

(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by—

(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided;

(b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;

(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or

(d) the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, either in its individual capacity or as a representative of interests of the consumers in general.

(2) Every complaint filed under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied with such amount of fee and payable in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of a complaint made under sub-section (1), the District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected: Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant: Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was received.

(4) Where a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (3), the District Forum may proceed with the complaint in the manner provided under this Act: Provided that where a complaint has been admitted by the District Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court or tribunal or any authority set up by or under any other law for the time being in force. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “recognised consumer association” means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force.]

Also Read- Sahara Complaint Online India Archives

Findings of Court

The court held the complaint to be valid and instructed the following to the respondent in the complainant’s favour:

To pay Rs. 5,64,222.
To pay Rs. 25,000 as a compensation for unfair trade practice and failure at service.
To pay Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.

The order was to be completed within 30 days the failure of which would result in interest at the rate of 12% per annum for all the cost except the litigation cost.

Also Read- Investors’ complaints pour in as Sahara faces probe for fraud

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that, in such cases where the core of the case focuses on the fact that whether there was some unfair trade practice performed that caused agony to the complainant. The absence of the defendant generally acts negatively against them as it takes away their opportunity to present their side. Unfair trade practice is something that consumers are protected against under the consumer protection act and therefore upholds the aim of it.

Also Read- The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002

This post is written by Aparna Tripathy.

For case specific advice please contact best top expert Consumer Court Lawyers Advocates of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.