Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/69

Malkit Singh & Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy Registrar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.S.Rana, Adv.

27 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  69 of 03.10.2016

                                 Date of decision                    :      27.11.2017

 

1. Malkiat Singh, son of Dharam Singh
2. Gurinder Kaur, aged about 46 years, daughter of Malkiat Singh, both residents of Village Dalla, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                        ......Complainants

                                             Versus

1. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Agriculture Society Ltd, Office at 2^nd Floor, Secretariate, Rupnagar  
2.  The Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Ltd, situated at Village Dalla, PO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its President, Sh. Swaran Singh. 
3.  The Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Ltd, situated at Village Dalla, PO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its Secretary.

                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.K.S. Rana, , Advocate, counsel for complainants

Sh. Naib Singh, authorized representative of O.P. No.1  

Name of the O.P. No.2 stands deleted vide order dated 04.07.2017

Sh.N.S.Khattra, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.3

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

Sh. Malkiat Singh and Smt. Gurinder Kaur through their counsel have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps. i.e. The Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society’) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till it realization
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him
3. To pay Rs.1,25,000/- as treatment cost and litigation expenses.

 

1.            The brief facts of the case are that the complainants No.1 & 2 deposited Rs.2,00,000/- each with the Dalla Multipurpose Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, situated at Village Dalla Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, through its secretary on 01.04.2012 and 01.07.2012, respectively. At the time of deposit of the said amount, the secretary of the said society i.e. O.P. No.3, issued the receipts with regard to the deposit of the amount on the letter head of the society and by affixing the stamp of the society, duly signed by him. The said society is working under the supervision of O.P. No.1. It being the final authority is supervising the day to day functioning of the said society. The complainants were in need of money and for withdrawal of the said amount, they approached the said society and requested to pay the amount lying deposited with them, along with interest. But the officials of the O.Ps. did not allow him to withdraw the said amount. Hence, this complaint.
2. On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable because the replying O.P. has no concern with the dealing between complainant and Jaspal Singh, who was the secretary of the society at that time; that the complaint of the complainant is barred by jurisdiction as per rules and act of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961; that the answering O.P. came to know regarding the dispute between the complainant and Jaspal Singh, when they moved an application before it against Sh. Jaspal Singh, during the enquiry it was revealed that the Jaspal Singh had taken money from the complainants for his personal use. The complainants had no saving account with the society. During the enquiry Jaspal Singh got recorded his statement and had admitted that he had taken money from Malkiat Singh on interest for his personal use. It is also reveals that the complainant. No.1 used to give money on interest basis to Jaspal Singh. During enquiry Malkiat Singh, had submitted one receipt dated 01.04.2012, in this receipt it was written that all dues were cleared with Jaspal Singh and previous dispute with regards to money between complainant No.1 and Jaspal Singh was sorted out. From the said enquiry report, it is clear that society has no concern and dispute with the complainants because they had never entrusted any money with the society. Sh. Jaspal Singh, has already been dismissed from the service. On merits, rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.
3. The O.P. No.3 has filed written version taking preliminary; that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P; that the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; that in fact the complainant No.1 had filed an application before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Rupnagar on 23.9.2013 regarding deposit of amount. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative societies, Rupnagar, sent/marked the said application to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Rupnagar, vide letter No. M.C/3009 dated 27.9.2013. The said application was sent to Bhag Singh, the Inspector, Cooperative Society, Dehar, for enquiry. The said inspector after inspecting the society record and hearing both the parties had submitted his detailed report in the office of A.R.C.S. Rupnagar on 6.4.2014. In the said inquiry report, the statement of the then secretary of the said society namely Jaspal Singh was recorded on 05.02.2014, wherein, he has stated that the disputed amount was received by him and he utilized/used the said amount for his personal work. The statement of Sh. Malkiat Singh was also recorded on 5.2.2014. He presented a letter head, which was fabricated as the said letter head was illegally obtained by the secretary of the society. It is pertinent to mention here that no amount was deposited by the complainant in the society record and the disputed amount was received by the secretary namely Jaspal Singh, who used the said amount for his personal benefits and had paid the interest to the complainant.  On merits, rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainants has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A  along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. The authorized representative of O.P. No.1 has suffered a statement, which has been recorded separately, to the effect that documents tendered by the O.P. No.3 may be read in evidence of O.P. No.1 and does not want to tender any other documents and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Karamjit Singh, Secretary of the Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Ltd, Ex.OP3/A along with documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/I and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and OP No.3 and authorized representative of O.P. No.1 and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

 

6. The authorized representative of O.P. No.1 and learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 have raised the objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, as per the provision of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and rules 1963. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that since the complainants have deposited the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with the Dalla Multipurpose Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, they being consumers are entitled to file the consumer complaint and the objection raised by the authorized representative of O.P. No.1 that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, is baseless.

Section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 reads as under:-

“Bar of jurisdiction of Court:- (1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of:-

1.  The registration of a co-operative society or its bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;
2. The removal of a committee;
3. Any dispute required under Section 55 to be referred to the Registrar; and
4. Any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a cooperative society

(2)  While a cooperative society is being wound up no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.

(3) Save as provided in this Act. No order decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any court on any ground whatsoever.”

As per provision of Section 82, reproduced above, the complainants have not been barred to file the instant complaint. The mere fact that some other remedy has been provided, to an aggrieved under some other law, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora in view of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under:-      

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law- The provisions of this act shall be in additional to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”

  The objection raised by the authorized representative of O.P. No.1 and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter is meritless and the instant complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable before this Forum. In the case “Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agriculture Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Ded) through L.R. & Ors.; I (224) CPJ (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held that the remedy under the Act has been provided in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction. It has been further held that merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the Members and the Management of the society under the Act, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Forums under the Act, expressly and intentionally. Reliance is also placed on the case decided by our own Hon’ble Commission, titled as Mukhtiar Singh Vs Malwinder Singh Battu and Others’ reported in 2011 (2) CLT 635.

On merits, the learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the complainants No.1 & 2 had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- each with the Dalla Multipurpose Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, through its secretary on 01.04.2012 and on 01.07.2012, respectively. But when they went to withdraw the amount lying deposited with the said society, its employee did not allow them to withdraw the said amount. The authorized representative of O.P. No.1 and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 have submitted that the complainants have no saving account with the society and they have given money to Sh. Jaspal Singh, for his personal use. The said Sh. Jaspal Singh, in his statement dated 05.2.2014, suffered during enquiry has stated that he had taken the money on interest from the complainants for his personal use. Since, the complainants has given the money to Sh. Jaspal Singh, for his personal use, therefore, the complaint filed against the O.Ps. is liable to be dismissed with cost.

From the perusal of the receipt dated 01.04.2012 Ex.C1 & dated 01.07.2012 Ex.C2, it is evident that the said receipts have been issued on the letter head of the society by Sh. Jaspal Singh, in the capacity of Secretary of the said society. It is nowhere written that the said Sh. Jaspal Singh, had taken the money from the complainants for his personal use, on interest. No doubt, in the statement suffered by the Sh. Jaspal Singh, the then secretary of the society, during the enquiry, it was stated that he had taken the money from the complainants on interest for his personal use, but at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that he after receipt of the amount from the complainants had issued the aforesaid receipts, in the capacity of secretary of said society. Had he taken the some amount from the complainants for his personal use then he ought not to have issued the said receipts in the capacity of the secretary of the society. It may be stated here that if the said secretary instead of depositing the amount of the complainants with the society had utilized for his personal use even then the societies being the employer of the said secretary is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of its employee. The society is thus liable to return the amount to the complainants along with interest because from the receipts, it is apparent that they handed over the aforesaid amount to Sh. Jaspal Singh, the then secretary to deposit the same with the society.  In the case of M/s Sagar Suri Estate and Finance Ltd. Vs. SH. Prem Lal, 2001 (2) CPC 396, wherein it has been held that where a depositor is deprived of his legal right by a firm or a company illegally from utilizing his deposited amount, such

 

an act certainly, is an act of deficiency in service. It may be stated here that the the Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Limited is a juristic person and has to be run by the natural persons. The complainants have filed the present complaint against the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Agriculture Society Limited, i.e. O.P. No.1, and against the Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Limited, through its secretary i.e. O.P. No.3. Therefore, the O.P. No.1, being the supervisory authority and the O.P. No.3 (Dalla Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Limited, through its secretary) are liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- i.e. (Rs.2,00,000/- each), to the complainants along with interest from the assets of the society. Not only this, they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony, physical harassment suffered by the complainants along with litigation expenses.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint against the O.Ps. No.1 & 3 and direct them in the following manner:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to each complainant  along with interest @ 7% per annum from the respective date of deposits till realization.

2.  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

3.   To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 7.      The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

          ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

          Dated .27.11.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER