O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Undisputedly, a Society is functioning under the name and style ‘The Pandoga Agricultural Cooperative Society’ in District Una. Opposite party No.3 is its Secretary, whereas, the opposite party No.4 is its Assistant Secretary. The opposite party No.1 is the Registrar of Cooperative Agricultural Services Society, Shimla, (HP), whereas, the opposite party No.4 is the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Agricultural Services Society, Una, H.P., and both of them have regulatory control over the functioning of the cooperative Society as defined under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and are performing statutory duties. The complainant is a member of the said Society having Account No. 464.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to correct record/Account No. 464 of the complainant and incorporate correct entries in the same or to pay Rupees 47,818/- on account of loss caused to the complainant along with compensation and cost on the grounds that the opposite parties No.3 and 4 fraudulently , dishonestly depicted the unpaid amount of loan as paid , showed the payment of loan on wrong and different dates, showed the payment of loan for different purpose i.e. for the purpose of purchase of land in the pronote and Behi Khata and also have shown the figures wrongly by committing fraud, cheating, forgery and misrepresentation which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which he has suffered harassment, monetary loss and mental pain.
3. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have disputed the said claim and have set up the defense that they are performing statutory duties as provided under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder and are not service providers and as such the complaint is not maintainable against it.
4. The opposite parties No.3 and 4 have also disputed the said claim of the complainant and have set up the defense that the complainant is the holder of A/c No. 464 of the said society and he operated upon and made transactions in the same from time to time and for which purpose he took the loan has been correctly entered in his account and the record maintained by the Society. The complainant took loan of Rupees 50,000/- on 04-04-2006 for the purpose of purchasing land and the members of the Managing Committee sanctioned and signed the pronote and only Rupees 1955 was paid towards interest by the complainant and after that no amount was paid uptil now and the amount of loan of Rupees 50,000/- along with its interest is still outstanding against the complainant and as such the complaint is false and concocted one, hence the opposite parties No.3 and 4 have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
5. The complainant has admitted that pronote dated 30-07-2001 Annexure C-2, pronote dated 04-11-2003 Annexure C-3, pronote dated 06-01-2006 Annexure C-4, pronote dated 04-04-2006 Annexure C-5, and account/behi Khata Annexure C-6 bears his thumb impression, but has claimed that the same were blank when he appended his thumb impressions and the opposite parties No.3 and 4 fraudulently and dishonestly showed in the said documents the unpaid amount of loan as paid, payment of loan has been wrongly shown on different dates, the payment of loan has been wrongly shown for different purpose i.e. for the purpose of purchasing of land and thereby they have committed fraud , cheating, forgery and misrepresentation. Except the deposition of complainant, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations and as such the said allegations have not at all been proved by any stretch of imagination. Even otherwise the complainant has claimed that the opposite parties No.3 and 4 have committed fraud, forgery, cheating and misrepresentation and the said allegations are required to be proved by leading cogent, reliable and creditworthy evidence. The proof of such allegations require elaborate and detailed examination of the documents and the examination of the witnesses and their cross examination and are of complicated nature which cannot be decided in a summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act and the matter is required to be adjudicated by the civil court.
6. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are statutory authorities and are not service providers, hence there exists no relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 of consumer and service provider, hence the complaint is not maintainable against them. It is also apparent that the opposite parties No.3 and 4 have been sued in their individual capacity and virtually the complaint has not been filed against the Society, whereas, the complainant has allegedly borrowed the loan from the Society hence the complaint is also not maintainable against them in their individual capacity. As already stated above, the complaint is also not maintainable against the Society in view of the serious allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation and cheating made by the complainant which are required to be decided by the Civil Court or by initiating a criminal case and as such the complaint is not triable by this Forum.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for the redreessal of his grievance, if advised so. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. The file be consigned to the records after its needful.
Announced and signed in open Forum
on this the 05th day of February, 2015.
