Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 395.

                                                          Instituted on     : 01.10.2013

                                                          Decided on       : 14.02.2017.

Sonia Batra d/o Yashpal Batra resident of Gujra Mohalla, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Haryana Bank Staff Coop. Urban (S.E) Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Railway Road Near Bata Show Room, Rohtak through its President Ved Parkash.
2. Ved Parkash, President, Haryana Bank Staff Coop. Urban (S.E) Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Railway Road Near Bata Show Room, Rohtak.
3. Madan Sehgal Founder & Hony. Secretary, Haryana Bank Staff Coop. Urban (S.E) Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Railway Road Near Bata Show Room, Rohtak r/o H.No.150, Sector-1, Rohtak.
4. Sunil Sehgal son of Madan Sehgal, Manager, Haryana Bank Staff Coop. Urban (S.E) Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Railway Road Near Bata Show Room, Rohtak r/o H.No.150, Sector-1, Rohtak. 
5.  Parveen Kumar Jain,Vice President, Haryana Bank Staff Coop. Urban (S.E) Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Railway Road Near Bata Show Room, Rohtak r/o H.No… Sector-1, Rohtak. 

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   Sh. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.R.K.Sapra, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Sutwal, Advocate for O.P. No.1 and 2.

                   Sh.Shailender Chaudhary Advocate for O.P. no.3 & 4.

                   Sh.A.K.Jain, Advocate for the O.P. No.5.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that she had deposited the amount in the shape of fixed Deposit receipts with the  opposite party no.1, who is a registered society having its own seal and opposite party no.2 to 5 are  officials of opposite party No.1.  It is averred that opposite party no.1 is a Non-Agricultural  T & C Society Ltd. Registered under Haryana Co-operative Societies Act 1984 and opposite party no.2 to 5 are office bearers of opposite party no.1 and  are jointly managing the affairs of the society having direct control over all the functions of the society.. It is averred that complainant deposited the amount in the shape of FDRs with the following details:-

It is averred that total maturity amount is Rs.64510/- and after the date of maturity the complainant approached various times to the opposite parties and asked them to refund the maturity amount of above said FDRs but the opposite parties said that it will be refunded after some days.  It is averred that now it has been learnt by the complainant that the opposite parties No.2 to 5 alongwith other office bearer have embezzled the amount of opposite party no.1 and a criminal case has also been got lodged against them and they are facing trial before the Courts at Rohtak. It is averred that opposite parties are bound to release the amount and the complainant is entitled to get the amount refunded alongwith interest at the prevailing market rate on the amount of maturity till realization. As such it is averred that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complainant has sought the refund of above said amount of F.D.Rs along with upto date interest, Rs.25000/- on account of compensation for deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party no.1 & 2 in their written statement have submitted that the Haryana Bank Staff Coop. Urban (S.E) Non Agric Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. is still in existence, the alleged society was suspended on 12.05.2006 and the answering opposite party has no concern with the alleged society in any manner. It is wrong to allege that opposite party no.1 is registered society as alleged or the opposite parties no.2 to 5 are office bearer of the opposite party no.1 or responsible for the business as alleged or opposite party no.2 to 5 who were managing the affairs of the opposite party no.1. At this time there is no alleged name society is registered society and membership as the same was suspended on 12.05.2006. It is averred that complainant never met with the opposite parties. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.                          Opposite party no.3 & 4 in their reply has submitted that it is not denied that opposite party no.1 is registered society and Mr.Ved Parkash is its President. It is submitted here that opposite party no.3 was never founder of that society and he had left the said society in the year 2003 and the post of Honorary Secretary was abolished in the same year and since the opposite party no.3 has no concern with the said society. The answering opposite party no.4 had also left the said society in the year 2006 as he was just only employee in the said society.  It is averred that now the charge of the said society is with the office of Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies, Rohtak.  It is averred that the said complaint is highly time barred and deserves dismissal on this sole grounds. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

4.                          Opposite party no.5 in its reply has submitted that  management of the respondent society has been taken over by the board of Administrator and the complainant failed to implead the Board of Administration at the time of filing complaint and even failed to implead party to the Liquidator to receive his amount of saving bank, if any. It is averred that the society is registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies  Act and as such the matter falls within the domain of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and the rules famed there under and as such the matter is to be referred to Arbitrator.  As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

5.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

6.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2 tendered affidavit Ex.DW1, document Ex.DW1/A and has closed his evidence. Opposite party no.3 & 4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A & Ex.RW4/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R4/1 and has closed his evidence. O.P.No.5 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW5/A, documents Ex.R5/1 to Ex.R5/3 and has closed his evidence.

7.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

8.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant has deposited the amount with the respondent society as per the following details:-

It is submitted that the alleged amount has not been paid by the opposite parties to the complainant despite her repeated requests. It is also submitted that respondent no.2 to 5 constitutes the managing committee of the society being President, Vice President, Manager and Honrary Secretary and have direct control over all the functions of the society are jointly and severally responsible to repay the amount with interest.

9.                          On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that control of the society has been taken by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Rohtak and the opposite parties have no control over the affairs of the society and no-one is competent to receive or pay any amount. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter. However respondent no.2 to 5 have also submitted that they were only the employees of society and as such no liability can be fastened against respondent no.2 to 5.

10.                        After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the receipt Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 it is proved that the complainant had deposited the amount as mentioned above with the opposite parties under FDR but the same has not been refunded to the complainant till now. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the alleged amount was deposited by the complainant with the respondents. Contention of the opposite parties is that the control of the society has been taken by the A.R. Co-operative Societies Rohtak and they have no control over the affairs of the society and that the respondents were only the employees in that society and had resigned from the said society in the year 2006 so they are not responsible for the amount deposited by the complainant. In this regard it is observed that opposite party No.3 & 4 during the pendency of this complaint moved an application seeking direction to the complainant to collect the amount of FDRs from the office of assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rohtak which was dismissed by this Forum and the revision petition was filed by the opposite party no.3 & 4 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula vide its order dated 22.09.2016 submitting therein that: “Neither the A.R. Co operative Societies is a party to the complaint nor the amount has been deposited by the opposite parties against the FDRs of complainant with A.R.Co. Operative Societies”. We have also placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission dt.4.9.2008 titled as Basant Rohilla Vs. Asha it has held that: “The ground taken by the appellant in this appeal is that he was not member of the Society. We do not find any force in this contention of the appellant because he has not led any evidence in support of his contention that he was not member of the Society on the date of deposit of the amount by the complainants (consumers) and in the absence of any evidence, the plea set up by the appellant (opposite party No.9) remains unproved. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed in limine.” and reliance has been also placed upon order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula whereby appeal filed  by Parveen Kumar Jain (opposite party no.5 in the present case) in Parveen Kumar Jain Vs. Rakesh Kumar was dismissed keeping in view the  “The Secretarty, Thirumurugan.Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha and Ors.(2004)1 SCC 305” wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that remedy against deficiency in service of the co-operative societies is permitted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it has been recognized and established fully in this case. It has been specifically observed that Co-operative societies are covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the District Forum has jurisdiction for it” and as per Dr. Brijesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Nasir Ali decided on 16.05.08 cited as 2008(IV) AWC 3377(Allahabad) Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has observed that there is no such law that the Consumer Forum cannot be approached when a Civil or Criminal proceeding is pending”. Similarly as per 2002(1)CLT 101 titled Smt. Kalawati and others Vs. M/s United Vaish Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Hon’ble National Commission has observed that complaint before District Forum against respondent society is maintainable and the members who have deposited the money are consumers” and as per the authority reported in 1(2009) CPJ 200 (NC) titled as Ashish Rameshchandra Birla & Ors. Vs. Murlidhar Rajdhar Patil & Ors. it has held that: “ Amount not refunded  on maturity- Complaint allowed by Forum- Directors of Society jointly and severally held liable-Order upheld in appeal- Hence revision- Direction of Registrar of Co-operative Society not obeyed- Corporate/cooperative veil removed- Directors correctly held liable for deficiency in service by Society- Order passed by Fora below upheld.” and the Hon’ble State Commission, Srinagar in 1(2004)CPJ 185 titled Mohan Lal Vs. AAR Kay Trader & Ors. has held that: “Deposits made to earn interest-O.P.closed their office-Refund of deposited amount with interest claimed-Amount deposited by complainant proved-O.P. directed to refund deposited amount with interest”.     

11.                        After going through the file, hearing the parties and above referred case law which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that respondent no.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. As such it is directed that respondent no.1 to 5 shall refund the maturity amount of F.D.Rs as shown in receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity of deposit till its actual realization and shall also pay an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

12.                        Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

13.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

14.02.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                          ………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member