DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.175 of 28.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 10.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Jagga Singh S/o Gurbachan Singh, R/o Village Dikh, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.District Manager, Housefed, Bathinda.<br /> 2.The Rampura Block Rural Urban House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Rampura through its Secretary.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> C.C.No.176 of 28.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 10.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Gurmit Singh S/o Gurbachan Singh, R/o Village Dikh, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.District Manager, Housefed, Bathinda.<br /> 2.The Rampura Block Rural Urban House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Rampura through its Secretary.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> C.C.No.177 of 28.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 10.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Gurdip Singh S/o Charan Singh, R/o Village Dikh, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.District Manager, Housefed, Bathinda.<br /> 2.The Rampura Block Rural Urban House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Rampura through its Secretary.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> C.C.No.178 of 28.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 10.9.2007 <br /> <br /> 1.Bhola Singh S/o Labh Singh, R/o Village Dikh, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.District Manager, Housefed, Bathinda.<br /> 2.The Rampura Block Rural Urban House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Rampura through its Secretary.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. K.S. Bhullar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Harraj Singh, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This order disposes of complaints Nos. 175 to 178 dated 28.6.2007 which have been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund to each of them share money of Rs. 10,100/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A till payment and pay to each of them Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, frustration and harassment, besides costs of the complaints. Since, controversy in all these four complaints is the same, they are being disposed of with one order. Complaints Nos. 176 to 178 have been consolidated with complaint No. 175 and this original order is being passed in this complaint. Certified copies of this order will be placed on the remaining three complaints.<br /> 2. Version of the complaints as emanates from the complaints may be stated as under :- <br /> They are Agriculturists. They were to construct residential houses. Opposite party No. 2 was approached by them. Share money of Rs. 10,100/- was deposited by each of them on different dates. Entries to this effect were made in their Passbooks. This amount is refundable immediately alongwith interest on repayment of the whole loan amount. Loan obtained for construction of their houses has been repaid in the month of February, 2006. In the month of March, 2006, opposite party No. 2 was approached for refund of the share money, but to no effect. A week before the filing of the complaints, opposite party No. 2 refused to accede to their requests. They allege that this has caused them mental agony, frustration, harassment and financial loss.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version in all the four complaints taking preliminary objections that opposite party No.1 is the District Manager, Housefed and that complaint has been filed against opposite party No.2 through its Secretary. Complainants are the members of opposite party No.2. The dispute is between the Society and the complainants. Housefed is a Cooperative Department. Matter comes within the purview of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act of 1961), its rules of 1963 and by laws of Housefed under section 82 of the Act of 1961. Hence, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred; no notice under section 79 of the Act of 1961 has been served upon the Society before filing the complaints and as such, they are liable to be dismissed; under section 55 and 56 of the Act of 1961, there is provision of reference of dispute between the Cooperative Society and its members to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and complainants have not availed that remedy and as such, complaints are liable to be dismissed & complaints are not maintainable being bad for misjoinder of parties. On merits, they admit that share money was deposited by the complainants. They do not specifically deny or admit the taking of the loan for construction of the houses by the complainants and its repayment by them in February, 2006. in paras No. 3 & 4 of the reply, they deny that they are entitled to the refund of the share money alongwith interest. In para No. 6 of the reply of the complaint, they admit the entitlement of the complainants for refund of the share money. They deny the remaining averments in the complaints.<br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaints, complainants have led evidence in their respective complaints. Ex.C.1 is the affidavit of the complainants in each case and Ex.C.2 is the copy of Pass Book in each complaint except in complaint No. 178 in which Ex. C.2 is copy of No Dues Certificate.<br /> 5. Opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavits of Sh. Roop Singh, Secretary, copy of the mortgage deed and copy of agreement as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 in each case. <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainants.<br /> 7. Three fold preliminary objections have been taken by the opposite parties in the replies of the complaints. They are that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaints as the dispute is between opposite party No.2-Society and the complainants, who are its members. No mandatory provision of the service of the notice under section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act has been complied with before filing the complaints. There is provision of reference of dispute between the Cooperative Society and its member/members to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. <br /> 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to these preliminary objections taken by the opposite parties. Act is not in derogation of any other law as is evident from its Section 3. Remedies available to the complainants under the Act for redressal of grievances are in addition to the remedies available under the Punjab State Cooperative Societies Act. Forums under the Act can exercise their jurisdiction over the services that the Society is rendering even to its members. For this, reference can be made to the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the cases of Sri Hanuman Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Smt. Anandi Choudhery-2005 CTJ730 (CP)(NCDRC) and Sai International (Exports) India V. Ami India Logistics Pvt. Ltd.-IV(2006)CPJ-428 (NC). Similar view has been held in the case of Varadoor Co-operative Urban Society Ltd. Vs. T. Ammu and others—2005 CTJ-788 (CP)(SCDRC). Reference on this aspect of the matter can also be made to the observations of their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through Legal Representatives and others-2004 CTJ-1 (Supreme Court (CP). Accordingly, non-service of notice before filing the complaint is inconsequential. This Forum is well within its right to entertain and try the complaint. It is maintainable before it.<br /> 9. There is no specific denial on the part of the opposite parties about the deposit of Rs. 10,100/- by each of the complainants as share money on different dates. Fact that loan was taken by the complainants for construction of their houses is not in controversy. Opposite parties do not deny the repayment of the loan by the complainants in February, 2006.<br /> 10. Mr. Bhullar learned counsel for the complainants urged that complainants are entitled to the refund of the share money alongwith interest. Despite requests made by them, amount has not been refunded by opposite parties and as such, there is deficiency in service on their part. <br /> 11. Mr. Harraj Singh learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that opposite parties are not liable to refund the share money of Rs. 10,100/- to each of the complainants alongwith interest and as such, there is no deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 12. We have considered respective arguments. Complainants reiterate their version in their affidavits. Sh. Roop Singh, Secretary of opposite party No. 2 in his affidavit Ex.R.1 admits that each of the complainants had deposited Rs. 10,100/- as share money on different dates. He further admits in his affidavit that they have settled their accounts with the opposite parties. According to him, share money is not refundable as per terms and conditions of the mortgage deed and loan agreement. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not show us any such terms and conditions according to which share money of Rs. 10,100/- deposited by each of the complainants is not refundable. Record is with the opposite parties. They could show that as per it (record) and law complainants are not entitled to the refund of share money. They have placed on record photocopy of the mortgage deed and the agreement. As per clause 25 of the agreement, copy of which is Ex.R.3, share money may be forfeited in case any dues remains unrecoverable. In these cases, entire loan amount has been repaid by the complainants. Para No. 6 of the complaint clinches the matter. Opposite parties state that this para is correct to the extent of entitlement of refund of the share money. In other words, they admit that complainants are entitled to the refund of the share money. In these circumstances, when record has not been produced and proved by the opposite parties to show that share money is not refundable and in para No. 6 of the reply of the complaint, the entitlement of the complainants for refund of the share money has been admitted and amount has not been refunded, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the<br /> complainants in each complaint. As per our foregoing discussion, direction<br /> <br /> <br /> deserves to be given to refund the amount of Rs. 10,100/- as share money to each of the complainants. As per clause No. 16 of the agreement, copy of which is Ex.R.3, no interest on this share money is payable. Accordingly, complainants are not entitled to interest on this amount as claimed by them. After the repayment of the loan amount, opposite parties were required to refund the share money to the complainants. Their repeated requests for refund of their share money have proved futile as opposite parties paid no heed to them. Had the opposite parties paid the share money to the complainants, they could make use of it. Opposite parties used their amount to their detriment. Their(opposite party's) act and conduct must have caused mental tension, harassment and agony as ultimately they have to knock the door of this Forum. For this, complainants deserve some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/- in each case.<br /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments. <br /> 15. As a result of our foregoing discussion, all these complaints (complaints Nos. 175 to 178) are accepted against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/- in each one of them. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Refund share money of Rs.10,100/- to each of the complainants i.e. complainants in complaints Nos. 175 to 178.<br /> ( ii ) pay Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants in these four months as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 16. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also<br /> <br /> <br /> consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 10.9.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />