JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President 1. This order, shall dispose of Appeal No.141 of 2009 titled as the Sarb Bank Employees Cooperative U.S.E.T. & Credit Society Ltd. and others Vs Gagandeep Singh, Appeal No.142 of 2009 titled as the Sarb Bank Employees Cooperative U.S.E.T. & Credit Society Ltd. and others Vs Jasbir Kaur and Appeal No.143 of 2009 titled as the Sarb Bank Employees Cooperative U.S.E.T. & Credit Society Ltd. and others Vs Swaran Kaur, directed against the common order dated 22.1.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh(hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the Complaint Case No.860 of 2008 - Gagandeep Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and others, Complaint Case No.861 of 2008 – Jasbir Kaur Vs Amarjit Singh and others and Complaint Case No.862 of 2008 – Swaran Kaur Vs Amarjit Singh and others, in the following manner ; C.C. No.860 of 2008 The OPs were directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest i.e. @ 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.60,000/- w.e.f. 18.8.2005 and interest @ 16% per annum on the amount of Rs.80,000/- w.e.f. 8.2.2005 till payment. C.C. No.861 of 2008 The OPs were directed to pay the amounts of Rs.20000+Rs.20000+Rs.20000+Rs.15197=Rs.75,197/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 4.6.2003 till payment. C.C. No.862 of 2008 The OPs were directed to pay the amounts of Rs.20000 + Rs.20000 + Rs.20000 + Rs.20000 + Rs.20000+ Rs.20000 + Rs.20000 + Rs.20000+Rs.20000+Rs.13476+Rs.20000+ .20000+Rs.45000+Rs.47400 = Rs.3,25,876/- to the complainant, alongwith interest, @ 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.40,000/- w.e.f. 18.8.2005 and @ 16% per annum on the amount of Rs.40,000/- w.e.f. 8.2.2005, Rs.40,000/- w.e.f. 9.2.2005, Rs.20,000/- w.e.f. 11.2.2005, Rs.20,000/- w.e.f 13.2.2005 and Rs.1,65,876/- w.e.f. 17.2.2005 till payment. The OPs were also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses in each complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, as are reflected in complaint case No.860 of 2008 Gagandeep Singh Vs Amarjit Singh & others are that Smt. Swaran Kaur, mother of the Complainant, deposited a sum of Rs.1.40 lacs in his name, with OP No.1 Amarjit Singh (now appellant No.3), on the representation made by him that the said amount shall fetch higher rate of interest, as compared to the interes,t being paid by the banks. It was also assured by Amarjit Singh that the money could be withdrawn, at any time, on demand. OP No.1 Amarjit Singh issued seven Fixed Deposit Receipts (for short ‘FDRs’), amounting to Rs.20,000/- each, indicating the rate of interest as 15% and 16% per annum. During August, 2006, the Complainant needed money for the marriage of his sister, as such, he approached OP No.1, through his mother, for encashment of the said FDRs. However, OP No.1 started putting off the matter, on one pretext or the other. In February, 2007, OP No.1 was again contacted when he held out a false assurance, to arrange the funds. However, he did not do anything. The Complainant approached the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, who was earlier Administrator of the Sarb Bank Employees Cooperative U.S.E.T. & Credit Society Ltd,OP No.3 in the original complaint (now appellant No.2), and requested for the release of the amounts of the FDRs vide Annexure C-8 and C-9 respectively, but no reply was received from the OPs, nor any amount was released to the complainant. C.C. No.861 of 2008 Jasbir Kaur Vs Amarjit Singh & Ors 3. In the said complaint, the complainant who was working in the Punjab Markfed, Chandigarh, was approached by one of the officials of the Punjab Markfed Head Office, with the proposal that OP NO.1 Amarjit Singh had formed a society. An assurance was held out to her that if the amount was deposited in the said Society, she would get higher rate of interest, than the one, paid by other financial institutions. Taken by such assurance, Jasbir Kaur, deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/-, in the name of Gurminder Singh, her minor son and in lieu thereof, four FDRs- three amounting to Rs.20,000/- each and one amounting to Rs.15,197/-, indicating the interest at the rate of 15% p.a., were issued duly signed by Amarjit Singh OP NO.1. These were renewed upto 4.6.2007. The complainant asked for encashment of the said FDRs and release of the maturity amount to the tune of Rs.1,34,981, but to no avail. C.C. No.862 of 2008 Swaran Kaur Vs Amarjit Singh & Ors 4. In the said complaint, the complainant, who was working in the Punjab Markfed, Chandigarh, was approached by one of the officials of the Punjab Markfed Head Office, that Amarjit Singh OP NO.1, had formed a Society, under the name and style of “The Sarb Bank Employees Cooperative U.S.E.T. & Credit Society Ltd.”. She was assured that, in case of deposit of amount, with the Society, she would be paid interest at the higher rate, than being paid by the other financial institutions. Taken by this assurance, Swaran Kaur , deposited a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. She was issued 13 FDRs- ten FDRs of Rs.20,000/- each and three FDRs of Rs.47,400/-, 13,476/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively by Amarjit Singh OP No.1, indicating the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and 16% p.a. These FDRs were renewed upto February,2007. When she asked for encashment of the said FDRs, and release of the amount, which came to be more than Rs.4.00 lacs, at the time of maturity, she was not paid the same. 5. When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no other alternative, the aforesaid complaints were filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 6. In reply, OP NO.1 pleaded that no representation, whatsoever ,was ever made by him, to the complainants, to invest any amount, in the Society, to earn higher rate of interest. It was stated that the amount paid by the mother of Gagandeep Singh was deposited with the Society, and not with OP No.1, who ceased to be the President of the Society in the year 2004. It was further stated that the fixed deposit receipts did not bear his signatures. Similar plea was taken by OP NO.1 in respect of allegations, made by other complainants, in other complaints. It was further stated that the Society was taken over by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies who was appointed as an Administrator on 29.4.2007. It was further stated that in these circumstances, the question of releasing the payment by OP NO.1, did not at all arise. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. It was also denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP No.1. 7. On behalf of OPs No. 2 and 3, initially one Surinder Singh, Peon put in appearance, and sought time, to file reply and evidence. Thereafter, neither the reply was filed, nor anybody appeared, on their behalf, to defend the cases, and, as such, they were proceeded against ex parte. 8. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 9. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, decided all the three complaints, referred to above, vide common order dated 22.1.2009, in the manner, detailed in para-1 of the judgment. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid three appeals, were filed by the OPs/ Appellants. 11. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act,1986, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961, clearly bar the same. It was further submitted by him that even the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction, as appellant No.1Society, was registered at Mohali and the Fixed Deposit Receipts were issued at Mohali. It was further submitted that the appellant Society was taken over by the Administrator, appointed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies on 27.3.2007 for its day to day working. He further submitted that an Official Liquidator, was appointed, and, as such, the managing committee of the Society ceased to exist, since then, and all its rights & liabilities including its management assets and affairs were taken over by the liquidator, appointed by the Registrar. It was further stated that, once the liquidator was appointed, no property of the Society could be attached for the recovery of the amount. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum,thus, being illegal , is liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Complainants submitted that OP NO.1, who was working as Assistant ,State Bank of India,SME Branch(3rd floor), Sector-17-B, Chandigarh, was the President of the appellant Society, and he approached the complainants at Chandigarh , with the assurance, that if the amount was deposited with the Society, they would get interest, higher than the one, paid by the financial institutions, in the market. He further submitted that, the amount was paid to OP No.1 at Chandigarh, and, as such, a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Chandigarh. He further submitted that thus, the District Forum, was right in holding, that it had the territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that Section-3 of the Act provides an additional remedy. He further submitted that the provisions of Sections-55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961 do not bar the jurisdiction of the District Forum, to entertain the complaint relating to the consumer dispute, and decide the same. He further submitted that even after the appellant Society had been superseded and an Administrator had been appointed, that did not make any difference. He further submitted that the appointment of a liquidator, did not absolve the appellants of their liability. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 14. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeals are liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. First, coming to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Chandigarh, it may be stated here, that Amarjit Singh (OP NO.1 in the original complaint) had been working as Assistant, in the State Bank of India, SME Branch(3rd floor), Sector-17-B, Chandigarh. He was, thus working for gain, at Chandigarh. He was approached either by the complainants or their guardians, at Chandigarh. The amounts were paid to him by the complainants or their guardians, at Chandigarh, when an assurance was given by him that the same would fetch higher rate of interest, as compared to the interest, paid by the banks. Since, the amounts were deposited with Amarjit Singh, who was the President of the appellant Society, at the relevant time, the District Forum was right, in holding, that a part of cause of action had accrued at Chandigarh, though, FDRs were issued at Mohali. The District Forum was also right, in holding that, as such, it had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. 15. The Counsel for the Appellants, however, placed reliance on Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1)RCR(Civil)1(SC) and K.Sagar,M.D., Kiran Chit Fund, Musheerabad Vs A.Bal Reddy and Anr. AIR2008 Supreme Court 2568, in support of his contention, that the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaints. In Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.’s case (supra) , the policy was taken at Ambala, and the claim for compensation was made at Ambala. No part of cause of action, had arisen to the complainant at Chandigarh. It was, under these circumstances, that the Apex Court held that the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction. In K.Sagar, MD., Kiran Chit Fund Vs A Bal Reddy and Anr.’s case (Supra), the order was passed by the Consumer Fora, without considering the question of jurisdiction. It was, in these circumstances, that the matter was remitted to the State Commission to decide the question of jurisdiction. The facts of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In these circumstances, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the Appellants, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants , therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected. 16. The next question, that falls for determination, is, as to whether, in view of the provisions Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain and decide the complaint was barred. Section -3 of the Act clearly lays down that the remedy under the same is in addition to and not in derogation of remedies, available under other Acts. In Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. Unitedvaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.-I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC), Nawal Kishore Kashyap Vs. Bihar State Housing Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Ors.-II (2009) CPJ 47 (NC) and KEB Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. V. Munivenkatappa-2006(3) CLT 302 (NC) such a question was raised, but it was repelled by the Hon’ble National Commission holding that even where there is a provision for arbitration, where the dispute between the parties is to be decided, by conciliation or by some other authority, the Consumer Fora would still have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, because the remedy, under Section 3 of the Act, has been afforded in addition to any other remedy, available to the aggrieved party. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs & Ors.-I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), it was held that the remedy under the 1986 Act, is in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies available. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs & Ors’s case(supra) there was a dispute, between the members and the management of a Cooperative Society, which under Section 90 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, was to be decided ,by the Registrar. In that case too, a similar argument was raised, but was not accepted. Under these circumstances, the ratio of law laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Thus, the District Forum was right, in holding, that Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, did not bar the remedy of filing a complaint, under the Act, before the Consumer Fora. 17. The Counsel for the appellants, however, placed reliance on the State Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Vs. Shakti Traders Cotton and Oil Merchants & Ors.-2007(1) RCR (Civil) 825.,in support of his contention that the remedy under the Act, was barred. In Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Vs. Shakti Traders Cotton and Oil Merchants & Ors’s case (supra), the decree holder had filed a suit for recovery against a Cooperative Society, which was decreed. During the pendency of the suit, the Society went into liquidation, and the liquidator, was appointed. The decree holder took out execution proceedings, which were challenged by the liquidator. In an appeal before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, it was held that the civil suit and other proceedings were barred before the Civil Court in view of Section 82(2) of the 1961 Act. The ratio of law, laid down in this authority does not apply to facts of the present case because Section 82 makes it clear that “no Civil or Revenue Court” shall have any jurisdiction, in respect of the matters, mentioned in Section 55 of the Act. There is no mention in Section 82 or sub clause (2) thereof, to bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. The District Forum is neither a Civil, nor a Revenue Court. Reliance was also placed by the Counsel for the Appellants, on Sampuran Singh Deol Vs The Manager, The Doraha Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited and Others 1997(2)CPC 627, a case decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in support of his aforesaid contention. In that case, the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,65,000/- for plantation of 2500 poplar trees. After release of 4 installments, 5th installment was not released. A complaint for loss of Rs.60,000/- was filed, but it was dismissed, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The State Consumer Commission, Punjab held that since the matter was covered under Sections 55, 56 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora was barred. The ratio of law, laid down in Sampuran Singh Deol Vs The Manager, The Doraha Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited and Others’s case (supra), runs counter to the ratio of law laid down, in Smt Smt. Kalawati & Ors., Nawal Kishore Kashyap and and KEB Employees’s cases (supra), decided by the National Commission and Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society’s case (supra), decided by the Apex Court. In these circumstances, any principle of law, laid down in Sampuran Singh’s case (supra) decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, which runs contrary to the ratio of law , laid down, in the cases, decided by the National Commission and the Apex Court, does not hold the field. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is rejected. 18. Undisputedly, Annexures C-1 to C-7 FDRs each for Rs.20,000/- were issued in favour of Gagandeep Singh complainant, when Amarjit Singh was the President of the Sarb Bank Employees Cooperative U.S.E.T & Credit Society Ltd. No doubt, the said society has been superseded and an administrator/liquidator has been appointed. Since, the amount was collected by Amarjit Singh, on behalf of the Society, at the relevant time, when he was the President thereof and the FDRs referred to above, were issued by the authorized signatory of the said Society, the appellants could not escape the liability of making the payment of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest to Gagandeep Singh, Complainant. 19. Similarly, in Complaint Case No.861 of 2008, a sum of Rs.75,197/- was deposited by the complainant on various dates and the FDRs were issued in her favour. The amount, admittedly, has not been paid so far. 20. In Complaint case No.862 of 2008, the complainant had deposited Rs.3,25,876/- on various dates and the FDRs were issued in her favour. The amount has not been paid so far. The District Forum, was right, in holding that in all the complaints, the appellants were deficient in rendering service, and were, thus, liable to pay the amounts with the agreed rate interest. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 21. For the reasons recorded above, all the aforesaid three appeals, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed, with no order as to costs. 22. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
