Presiding Member Mr. Swapan Kumar Das
Single Bench
(Kameshwar Jha Vs Co-Ordinator & Eastern & North East Frontier Railway Cooperative Bank Limited, Kolkata)
The instant case was heard in the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) Jalpaiguri, under the Ld. Presidentship of Sri K. K. Kumai together with two others. Final judgement was passed on 30/08/2022. The then Ld. President of Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri is presently the Presiding Member of this commission (i.e., Siliguri Circuit Bench of W.B.S.C.D.R.C). For the sake of natural justice, the same case which was heard by him as Ld. President of DCDRF, Jalpaiguri, may not be heard by the same Judge in his capacity of Presiding Member of W.B.S.C.D.R.C, Siliguri Circuit Bench, at the Appellate Level. Hence Proposal for constituting Single Bench was sent to State Commission vide memo no. 44/SCB/1E-15/2023 dated 31/01/2023. Consequently, Ld. State Commission has accorded permission/approval for formation of Single Bench with the Member Mr. Swapan Kumar Das as Presiding member vide memo no. 232(24)/SC/2J-14/08(Vol.-I) dated 06/02/2023. Accordingly, Single Bench was formed and have taken place on date.
The Case in brief is that the Appellant (i.e., Kameswar Jha, the ex-Railway Employee) being aggrieved with the Order passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri (henceforth will be referred as Ld. Lower Forum) dated 30-08-2022 in C.C No.46 of 2019 approached to the Ld. State Commission (Siliguri Circuit Bench) for enhancement of his dues etc. As he was not satisfied on the quantum of amount of Rs.10,889/- (Rupees ten thousand eight hundred eighty-nine) only with interest and refund of the values of 1500 nos. of shares. He is also dissatisfied with the Order of the Ld. Lower Forum since no compensation order was awarded.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Ld. advocate on behalf of the respondent appeared and submitted written notes of argument wherein it is stated that “Ld. DCDRF has failed to apply his judicial mind, failed to calculate the quantum of compensation, failed to appreciate the facts regarding adjustment of the CRBD amount of Rs.34,409/-(Rupees thirty-four thousand four hundred and nine) only without due course of law and arbitrary decision and clear violation of article 142(1) and 300A of Indian Constitution. The appellant has also taken the grounds of principles of natural justice by not giving the NOC, even after 9 (nine) years of superannuation, not giving the retrial benefits and also not imposing interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.34,409/- (Rupees thirty-four thousand four hundred and nine) only”.
At the same time, it is stated in there that, “Your Honor, from the Judgment of the Ld. District Consumer Forum Jalpaiguri, it is clear that the Ld. Forum has rightly delivered the judgement and order on 30.08.2022 in CC. No. 46 of 2019”.
The above two paras as enumerated in the W.N.A submitted by Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents are confusing and contradictory.
At the same time, Ld. advocate for the respondent raised the question regarding the maintainability of the instant case in Consumer Forum. Since, “the said Co- Operative Society has been registered under the Multi State Co-Operative Societies Act, 2002. It is also to be mentioned here that in Chapter - IX, under the heading Settlement of Disputes in Section - 84 i.e., Reference of disputes, it is categorically mentioned that any disputes touching the Constitution, Management or business of a Multi-Stated Co- Operative Society arises among the members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members or between a member of a multi-stated co-operative society and any other multi state co-operative society...... Such disputes shall be referred to Arbitration for the purpose of sub-section 1 i.e., disputes touching the constitution, management or business....”.
But on subtle scrutiny of materials on record, it transpires that the appellant being ex-rail employee was the customer of the respondent no.2 i.e., Eastern & North East Frontier Railway Co-operative Bank Limited, Kolkata (henceforth will be referred as said Bank) and his main allegation is that he owes to the respondent no.2 (Bank) the amount which has been excessively deducted from his loan account and he did not also receive the CRBD amount at the time retirement. In this sense, he is a consumer under 2 (i) (d) of CPA Act, 1986. Thus, the logic of Ld. advocate of the respondent does not carry any weight. Since “such disputes do not touch constitution, management or business of the said Bank.”
So, the instant Case need not be referred to Arbitration, rather this court is within its jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the Case upon merits. In this sense, the forum below (Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri) had done the right thing, heard and disposed of the Case (CC/46/2019).
Hon’ble Justice R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Justice S.K. Naik, Member of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, in SBI Vs. Baldwip Singh and others, in their Order dated 31.5.2011 inter alia stated that Consumer Forum would have jurisdiction to entertain compliant and further opined that both the Forum (District and State Commission) has the jurisdiction to deal with in the matters of Cooperative Society specially regarding payment of ‘DUES’ and there is no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the Ld. Lower Forum (Ld. State Commission and Ld. District Commission). Hence Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, declined to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. Consumer Forum below and dismissed the revisionists petition of the Appellant (SBI Bank).
In the Case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. M/s. United Baish Cooperative Society, the appellant did not receive her FDR amount on maturity and moved to the Ld. District Forum for justice. The Ld. District Forum ordered that the amount matured in respect of fixed deposit is to be refunded to the Appellant and the respondent (Cooperative Society) should refund the amount in FDR with accrued interest due to the petitioner at the time of maturity and thereafter interest @ 18% P.A. till payment. The respondent (State Coopt Society) moved to the Ld. State Commission who in turn overruled the judgement of the Ld. District Forum. Mrs. Kalawati the petitioner then, moved to the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi against the order of the State Commission. Hon’ble Justice D.P. Wadha (President) and other 3 Hon’ble Judges opined that Kalawati had the valid ground to get her FD amount on maturity with accrued interest and ordered “we, therefore, overrule the view taken by the State Commission both on the question of jurisdiction and on the consumer availing of the services of the Society. The order of the Ld. State Commission is therefore set aside and the order of the Ld. District Forum is restored.”
The Ld. Advocate of the respondent also categorically stated that his client, (respondent no.2 said Bank) is ready to pay the amount shown in the report, that is Rs.18,557/- (Eighteen thousand five hundred and fifty-seven only) as per Annexure “A” along with the interest accrued on it and Rs.32,999/- (Rupees thirty two thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only as per Annexure ‘B’ as CRBD fund and further stated that his client (said Bank) was contemplating to implement the order of the Ld. Lower Forum dated 30.08.2022. But meanwhile the appellant moved to the Ld. State Forum for enhancement of the amount mentioned in the order dated 30.08.2022 in connection with CC/46/2019 and other compensation. Thus, it is undisputed that the Appellant would get some dues from respondent no.2 (said Bank) which the latter agreed but only dispute is regarding the quantum of amount.
It is clear that the respondent no.2 has got the sufficient time (69 days) to implement the order of the Ld. Lower Forum. But the respondents did neither take any initiative in implementing the same nor, did it give any signal/message to the appellant regarding their goodwill that he would abide by the order passed by Ld. Lower Forum, Jalpaiguri nor did they approach to the Higher Forum (State Commission) against the impugned order of Ld. Lower Forum
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent agreed that the appellant would get the amount due to him but declined to accept the amount as mentioned of the Order of Ld. Lower Forum in connection with order no. CC/46/2019 dated 30-08-2022. Rather he assured this Forum/Ld. Court that respondent no.2 is ready to pay the amount as mentioned in Annexure “A” & “B” i.e., Rs.18,557/- Rupees eighteen thousand five hundred fifty-seven) only along with interest accrued on it and Rs.32,999/- (Rupees thirty-two nine hundred ninety-nine) only as CRBD fund respectively. Since the said Bank has its own accounting system/procedure and it is a system generated figure, I have but to depend on them than manual calculation done by the Ld. Lower Forum.
Thus, the contents and demands of the appellant persist and succeed.
Hence, it is ordered that:
- The instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
- The respondent no. 2/Bank is directed to refund the amount of Rs.18557/-(Rupees eighteen thousand five hundred fifty-seven) only as per Annexure ‘A’ along with the latest interest accrued on it within 30 days from the date of this order failing which @ 12% interest P.A. will be charged on day-to-day basis.
- The respondent no.2/said Bank is also directed to pay Rs.32,999/- (Rupees thirty-two thousand nine hundred ninety-nine) only as CRBD fund as per ‘Annexure ‘B’ within 30 days failing which @12% interest P.A. will be charged on day-to-day basis.
- The respondent no.2/said Bank is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation to the appellant for his mental agony, anxiety and lapses, latches on the part of the respondents, due to negligence and deficiency in service as the appellant had to approach the Ld. Lower Forum to get his legitimate dues after waiting for a long time (almost 5 years) since his retirement.
- A sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to be paid by respondent to the appellant as legal cost.
- Therefore, the order of the Ld. Lower Forum is set aside.
The respondent no.2/Bank is hereby directed to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In default of the awarded amount within the stipulated period as stated above, the petitioner would be at liberty to execute the same as per law for appellant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Copy of this order be also sent to Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri.
