BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.910 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.1090 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between
1. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited
rep. by its Manager, 2-1-566/1, Sainiketan Complex
Nallakunta, Hyderabad-20
2. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Citizen House,
11-7-194, Huda Colony, Saroornagar
Hyderabad-035
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
1. P.Avanti Reddy D/o G.Ashok Reddy
rep. by G.Pushpalatha Reddy
2. G.Pushpalatha Reddy W/o G.Ashok Reddy
Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife
3. G.Ashok Reddy S/o Meghanadh Reddy
Aged about 60 years,
All are R/o H.No.1-8-38/2,
Chikkadpally, Eshwar Reddy Lane
Hyderabad-20
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellants M/s J.Shiva Sankar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents M/s G.B.S.S.Papa Rao
F.A.No.296 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.1090 OF 2010
Between
1. P.Avanti Reddy D/o G.Ashok Reddy
rep. by G.Pushpalatha Reddy
2. G.Pushpalatha Reddy W/o G.Ashok Reddy
3. G.Ashok Reddy S/o Meghanadh Reddy
All are R/o H.No.1-8-38/2,
Chikkadpally, Eshwar Reddy Lane
Hyderabad-20
Appellants/complainants
A N D
1. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited
rep. by its Manager, 2-1-566/1, Sainiketan Complex
Nallakunta, Hyderabad-20
2. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Citizen House,
11-7-194, Huda Colony, Saroornagar
Hyderabad-035
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants M/s G.B.S.S.Papa Rao
Counsel for the Respondents M/s J.Shiva Sankar Reddy
F.A.No.911 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.1091 OF 2010
Between
1. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited
rep. by its Manager, 2-1-566/1, Sainiketan Complex
Nallakunta, Hyderabad-20
2. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Citizien House,
11-7-194, Huda Colony, Saroornagar
Hyderabad-035
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
1. P.Avanti Reddy D/o G.Ashok Reddy
rep. by G.Pushpalatha Reddy
2. G.Pushpalatha Reddy W/o G.Ashok Reddy
Aged about 54 years,
3. G.Ashok Reddy S/o Meghanadh Reddy
Aged about 60 years,
All are R/o H.No.1-8-38/2,
Chikkadpally, Eshwar Reddy Lane
Hyderabad-20
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellants M/s J.Shiva Sankar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents M/s G.B.S.S.Papa Rao
F.A.No.297 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.1091 OF 2010
Between
1. P.Avanti Reddy D/o G.Ashok Reddy
rep. by G.Pushpalatha Reddy
2. G.Pushpalatha Reddy W/o G.Ashok Reddy
3. G.Ashok Reddy S/o Meghanadh Reddy
All are R/o H.No.1-8-38/2,
Chikkadpally, Eshwar Reddy Lane
Hyderabad-20
Appellants/complainants
A N D
1. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited
rep. by its Manager, 2-1-566/1, Sainiketan Complex
Nallakunta, Hyderabad-20
2. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Citizen House,
11-7-194, Huda Colony, Saroornagar
Hyderabad-035
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants M/s G.B.S.S.Papa Rao
Counsel for the Respondents M/s J.Shiva Sankar Reddy
F.A.No.912 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.1092 OF 2010
Between
1. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited
rep. by its Manager, 2-1-566/1, Sainiketan Complex
Nallakunta, Hyderabad-20
2. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Citizien House,
11-7-194, Huda Colony, Saroornagar
Hyderabad-035
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
P.Avanti Reddy D/o G.Ashok Reddy
rep. by G.Pushpalatha Reddy
H.No.1-8-38/2, Chikkadpally
Hyderabad-20
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants M/s J.Shiva Sankar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents M/s G.B.S.S.Papa Rao
F.A.No.298 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.1092 OF 2010
Between
P.Avanti Reddy D/o G.Ashok Reddy
rep. by GPA Holder G.Pushpalatha Reddy
All are R/o H.No.1-8-38/2,
Chikkadpally, Eshwar Reddy Lane
Hyderabad-20
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited
rep. by its Manager, 2-1-566/1, Sainiketan Complex
Nallakunta, Hyderabad-20
2. The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Citizen House,
11-7-194, Huda Colony, Saroornagar
Hyderabad-035
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants M/s G.B.S.S.Papa Rao
Counsel for the Respondents M/s J.Shiva Sankar Reddy
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The appeals, F.A.No.910, 911 and 912 of 2012 are filed by the opposite party- society whereas the appeal F.A.Nos.288 of 2013, 296 of 2013 and 297 of 2013 are filed by the complainants. The matter involves same facts and similar circumstances and as such all the appeals are being disposed of by common order. F.A.No.911 of 2013 is taken as lead case.
2. The respondents filed complaint claiming an amount of 12,68,568/- towards maturity value of deposits and an amount of 2,00,000/- towards compensation and 10,00,000/- towards costs.
2. The District Forum awarded a sum of 12,68,568/- - towards maturity value with interest @6% and an amount of 6,000/- towards costs.
3. The case of the respondents is that they deposited amounts with the appellant-society under ‘’Akshay Scheme”. An amount of 6,30,288/- was deposited on 10.11.2005 in the name of the first respondent and the maturity value of the deposits after period of 57 months is double the deposit value. The respondent no.1 authorized the respondent no.2 to proceed on her behalf in legal proceedings against the appellant-society. After the period of maturity, the appellant-society received the receipts and informed the respondents that it would process the claim and send the amounts to the respondent no.1. As the amount is not paid , the respondents filed the complaint.
3. The appellant-society resisted the claim on the premise that the respondents deposited the amounts on 10.11.2005 for a period of 15 months to be matured on 10.02.2007 and the amounts were deposited with the appellant-society because the respondent no.3 at the relevant time was working as relationship manager with the appellant-society and subsequently, the deposits were extended under Akshay Scheme through the respondent no.3 without obtaining permission from the head office and the respondents played fraud on society. The respondent no.3 misused his position as relationship manager with the appellant-society and altered the period of deposit to 57 months and the rate of interest @15% as also he had added the name of wife in FDR No. 430/05 to 436/05, his name in FDR No.437/05 to 443/05 and his grand daughter’s name in FDR No.444/05 to 450/05 without intimating the head office.
4. The appellant submitted that the respondent no.3 misusing his position with the appellant-society opened SOD No.13 for 7,00,000/- in his name and in the name of his wife against their deposits as lien and further, he opened SOD No.14 during May,2006 in the name of B.Naveen Krishna ad Smt.P.Avanthi Reddy for a limit of 14,94,728/-against her deposit with interest @17% p.a. The appellant submitted that the respondent no.3 deleted the name of the respondent no.1 and taken away her documents.
5. The appellant-society submitted that the respondent no.3 made transactions for three times from SOD 13 to SOD 14 without informing the head office. He had closed SOD-13 by transferring an amount of 5,85,699/- from SOF-22 in the name of his daughter without informing the head office. The respondent opened SOD-29 on 21.02.2009 in the name of his wife with limit of 8,00,000/- against lien of FDR bNo.433 of 2005to 4436 of 2005 for an amount of 2,11,429/ each.
6. The respondent no.1 and Naveen Krishna were sanctioned loan in SOD-14 against FDRs 430/05 to 450/05 for 1,05,048/- each. As the loan is a third party loan, interest should have been charged on the amount. On 28.07.2010 the loan documents of the respondent no.1 were found misplaced and the appellant issued show-cause notice to the respondent no.3 who returned FDRs Nos. 430,431,441, 442 and 443 of 2005 and tendered resignation for his job. The respondent no.3 returned the FDR Nos.444 to 451 on 12.08.2010 and the appellant closed SOD by adjusting the maturity value of the FDR which were kept as lien.
7. In support of their claim, the first respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the appellants, the Managing Director of the appellant no.2 society filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.B1 to B10.
8. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the respondent no.3 was the employee of the appellant-society and for any tampering of the FDRs made by him, the appellant is liable to pay the amount covered under the FDRs.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party-society has filed appeal contending that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and that the respondent no.1 alone filed the complaint and it is shown in the cause title that three respondents field the complaint. It is contended that the third respondent manipulated the FDRs and opened SOD and the District Forum misconceived FDRs as SVDs. The complainants have filed F.A.No.297 of 2013 for enhancement of the amount.
10. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the respondents rendered deficiency in service ?
ii) To what relief?
11. POINT NO.1: The deposit receipts six in number would show that an amount of 1,05,048/- was deposited on 10.11.2005 under each deposit receipts for a period of 15 months with the appellant-society. The maturity date of the deposits is 10.02.2007. The deposit receipts were renewed for further period of 57 months under ’’Akshay Scheme”. The respondents claimed the amount on maturity. The appellant has contended that the respondent no.3 tampered with the deposit receipts without the knowledge of the appellant society and as such the appellant is not liable to pay any amounts to the respondents.
12. The appellant had disowned liability on the premise of tampering with the FDRs by the respondent no.3. Admittedly, the respondent no.3 is the husband of the respondent no.2 and father of the respondent no.1. The respondents deposited the amounts with the appellant-society in view of the employment of the respondent no.3 as Relationship Manager. A bare perusal of the deposit receipts would indicate addition of name of the second respondent subsequently to the date of issue of the deposit receipts as also the duration of deposit and interest. The respondent no.3 taking advantage of his position with the appellant-society, tampered with the FDRs and created SODs. As such the respondents no.1 and 2 or the respondent no.3 cannot take advantage of deliberate mischief played on by the respondent no.3 which would not only lead to loss to the appellant-society it would also lead to unjust enrichment of the respondents .
13. The respondents cannot take advantage of the manipulated fixed deposit receipts. The question of manipulation of the deposit receipts and claim thereunder requires elaborate examination and cross examination of parties and the same is not possible under summary proceedings before this Commission.
14. In “Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and jaipur “reported in AIR 2002 SC. The Supreme Court was dealing with jurisdiction of consumer forum in relation to the complex issue involved in the subject matter. It was held;
“Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of Fifteen Crores and for an additional sum of Rs.15 lacs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is oblivious that very detailed evidence has to be led in, both to prove the claim and thereafter the damages and the expenses. It is therefore, in any event not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The national commission was right in giving the appellant the liberty to move the civil court.”
15. “In Bhagwanji D.Patel and Another vs Indian Bank and Others” III (2011) CPJ 175, the subject matter of the complaint was that 5 cheques NRE/SB account signed by the power of attorney holder for different amounts were questioned and CBI investigated into allegations of fraud and forgery against 8 persons who included the Manager of the Bank and filed charge sheet. Hon’ble National Commission held that the complaint raises very complicated questions of facts and law which can be answered by civil court and not consumer forum.
16. The National Commission in ”Safe Home Developers and Contractors vs S.S.B. Ltd” IV (2012) CPJ 729 referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Others” I(2002)CPJ 16 and “Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others” III(2012)CPJ 17 that where detailed evidence is required to be led by both parties to prove the claim and damages the complainant suffered , necessarily the parties have to be relegated to Civil Court.
17. In Trai Foods Ltd)supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the nature and scope of the dispute whether amenable to the jurisdiction of Consume Forum and Civil Court as under:
“The only question to be decided is, when should this jurisdiction be exercised by the Commission. In our view the Commission should address itself to the quantity of the claim, the nature of the claim, the nature of the evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of the claim and the damages suffered and the nature of the legal issues before deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the Civil Courts in the regular course. It is not disputed that the Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy. The Consumer Forums have been given the responsibility of achieving this object. They were not meant to duplicate the civil courts, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the Civil Courts.
“Although the reasons given in the impugned order of the Commission for referring the present matter to the Civil Court is cryptic, we have been through the records filed before us and are satisfied that the Commission’s decision was correct. There is no doubt having regard to the nature of the claim, the large amount of damage claimed, and the extensive inquiry inot the evidence which would be necessary in order to resolve the disputes between the parties that this is not matter to be decided summarily at all”
18. In view of the complex questions involved in the subject matter of the complaints as to the alteration of period of deposit and date of deposit etc., we are of the opinion that the parties can be relegated to the civil court.
19. In the result, the appeals are disposed of setting aside the orders of the District Forum. Consequently, the complaints are dismissed. The complainants are at liberty to approach to the Civil Court or any other Forum. In the event the complainants approach the Civil Court or any other Forum, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others” reported in III (2012) CPJ 17”.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.20.01.2014
కె.ఎం.కె*
