The case of the complainant is that he is an ordinary resident and the O.P. Nos. 1 to OP 5 are the non-banking credit cooperative society registered namely Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity having its registered office at Village & P.O. – Chayyani, P.S. – Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743376 under the Co-operative Societies Act and their office bearers.
The case of the complainant Sri Nanda Das s/o Late Adhir Chandra Das as averred is that a Fixed Deposit certificate no. 301 dated 12.10.2012 was purchased on 12.10.2012 by the complainant for a principal amount of Rs. 24,000/- with a maturity value of Rs. 48,000/-. Another fixed deposit certificate no. 351 dated 20.01.2013 was purchased on 20.01.2013 by the complainant for a principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- with a maturity value of Rs. 20,000/- but in the name of one Bijoy Das instead of himself Nanda Das inadvertently. But the OPs are not refunding money upon maturity. Hence, the complainant prays for refund of the maturity amount along with 10% interest and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
The complainant exhibited the copy of said FD certificates and various reminder correspondences to the OPs alongwith postal track reports as proof of service.
The O.P. No. 1 to OP no. 5 filed W/V but did not participate in the proceedings thereafter. The OPs are represented by it’s President, Manager, Treasurer cum Agent and the Secretary (herein after referred to as the as the O.Ps). The complainant is praying for refund and compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The OPs appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed written version contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and this consumer commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in terms of section 102 (4) of the West Bengal Cooperative Society Act, 2006. The O.P.s have denied the allegations made out in the complainant. The OPs prays for dismissal of the Complaint.
On perusal of record including the vakalatnama filed by Ld. Advocate of the OP3, it is observed that the Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the O.P. no 3 only. Service of notices were duly completed in respect of all the OPs. But the Ld Advocate of the OP3 was found having manually corrected the subject matter of the W/V by inscribing the W/V on behalf of OP1 to OP5 as well but without subscribing his signature on such corrections. It has also been noted in the order sheet no 4 dated 08.05.2023 that the Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of O.P. nos. 1, OP 2, OP 3, OP4 and OP5.
As per the complaint case and W/V on record, following are the points which requires to be determined for proper adjudication of the case:
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Has this forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Have the O.Ps. any deficiency in service as alleged ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point no. 1:
The complaint petition filed by the complainant and the W/V by contesting OPs challenging maintainability of the complaint case is taken up together with point no.1. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. for consideration by opening ‘ two fixed deposit accounts for Rs 24,000/- and Rs.10,000/- totalling to Rs. 34,000/- with a total matured value of Rs, 48,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- totalling to Rs. 68,000/- only.
The Ld. Advocate for the OPs opposed by stating that the complainant is not a consumer and this consumer commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the present case is barred by section 102 (4) and 145(1) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act’ 2006. We have gone through the written complaint and the W/V and the acts referred by the Ld. Advocate for the contesting OPs. We have placed our reliance on various decisions of higher forums wherein it is observed that complaint case against Cooperative Society is maintainable since the disputes between the members of the Coopeartive Society and the Coopeartive Society itself can be decided by the Consumer Commissions as below :-
- Hon’ble Supreme Court order on Thirumurugan Cooperative Agri Society Ltd. Vs M.Lalitha
- Hon’ble Supreme Court order on Virender Jain Vs Alakananda Copperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
- Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of KB Magdum VS Baleshivappasasalatti & two Ors. dated 22.02.2019
Sec 100 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019 (or CP Act 1986) is not in derogation but in addition to any other Law. On a careful consideration from the materials on the record and with due regard to the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs and on hearing the submission of both sides we are inclined to opine that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint case is quite maintainable.
Point no. 2:
Ld. Advocate for the contesting O.P. submits that the case is not maintainable also in want of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. On a careful consideration we think that this commission has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdictions to adjudicate the complaint.
Point nos. 3 and 4:
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant had 2 fixed deposit accounts with the Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vide certificate(s) vide no 301 dated 12.10.2012 and no. 351 dated 20.01.2013. It is urged that the O.Ps may be directed to pay Rs. 68,000/-. He argues that the complainant is not pressing for any cost against the O.P.s. He prays for passing appropriate order.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the contesting O.Ps submits that the complainant had 2 fixed deposits and the total maturity amount is Rs. 68,000/-. It is submitted that the Cooperative Society is facing financial crisis but there is no whisper about the payments of the complainant’s money by the Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. and rather pleaded that the compliant case is not maintainable before this consumer commission.
Gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and the documents filed by both sides. Admittedly, the complainant had a two fixed deposits and the Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Has failed to make payments of the matured values. It is also apparent from the exhibits and copies of FD receipts. There is no denial on factum that Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. did not repay against the matured amount of fixed deposits. On a careful consideration, we find that the Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. represented by its President, Manager, Secretary and Treasurer has deficiency in service as the said amount of Rs. 68,000/- has not been paid to the complainant in spite of repeated requests. On perusal of documents filed by the Complainant, we find that one Bijoy Das deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for 6 years with a maturity value was Rs. 20,000/- as on 12.10.2018 as it appears from Xerox copy on receipt no. 351 dated 20.01.2013. The said Bijoy Das has not given any permission to the complainant to file the case against Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Neither there is any cogent proof that has been exhibited by the complainant that the complainant Nanda Das and the said Bijoy Das are one and same person. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P. Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. represented by its President, Secretary and Treasurer and office bearers have caused deficiency in service by not returning the legitimate money to the complainant upon maturity of fixed deposit and the complainant Nanda Das is entitled to get back the matured value of Rs. 48,000/- along with a compensation in the form of simple interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 12.10.2018 till realization. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP no 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity represented by the OP 1, OP 2, OP 3, OP 4 and OP 5 without cost.
The O.P. Chayyani Majerhat Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity represented by the O.P. nos. 1, OP 2, OP3, OP4 and OP5 are jointly and severally liable and be directed to pay Rs. 48,000/- along with a compensation in the form of simple interest @ 7% per annum. to the complainant Nanda Das with effect from 12.10.2018 till the day of actual realisation, payable within 60 days from the date of this order I/D the complainant is entitled to file execution case for decree on the entire payable amount.
Let a copy of Final order be supplied to both the parties / their Agents/ Ld. Advocates free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in: www.confonet.nic.in.
