Malkit Singh & Another filed a consumer case on 27 Nov 2017 against Deputy Registrar in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/69 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Dec 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 69 of 03.10.2016
Date of decision : 27.11.2017
......Complainants
Versus
....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:-
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:-
(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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.