STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

The NABARD Employees Cooperative Urban Salary Earners Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Chandigarh, through its Administrator C/o O/o of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/OP-2

V e r s u s

1.       Jasbir Choudhary @ Jasvir Choudhary w/o Sh. J.S. Choudhary, Manager NABARD, resident of House No.1702, Sector 34B, Chandigarh             

2.       Sh. J.S. Choudhary S/o Sh. Des Raj, resident of House No.1702, Sector 34-B, Chandigarh            

3.       Raj Rani W/o Sh. Dharam Singh, resident of House No.1702, Sector 34-B, Chandigarh            

 4.      The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh O/o Estate Office, Sector 17, U.T., Chandigarh.

 ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. K.K. Gupta, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This appeal has been filed by OP No.2 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 4.10.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum)  whereby the complaint was allowed with the directions to the OPs to release the respective amounts of the FDRs and amount deposited in CDS deposits, if any, to the respective complainants after deducting the amount(s), if any, already paid to them, alongwith interest at the agreed rate of 11% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its realization. The OPs were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- towards cost of litigation. 

2.                      In nutshell, the Complainants deposited certain amounts with the OP Society and got FDRs as mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint, which was duly signed by its office bearers. It was alleged that upon maturity, the OP Society did not release them the maturity amount with interest despite repeated requests and representations. It was stated that Complainant No.1 was making compulsory deposits in the account of the Society from her salary account @ Rs.100/- p.m. from 1996 upto March 2003 and then from April 2003 to March 2005 @ Rs.150/- per month totaling to Rs.11,250/-. It was alleged that the said amount was not refunded to the Complainant No.1 despite the communication dated 9.3.2005.  However, OP No.2 paid 20% of the maturity amount to the Complainants on different dates and remaining 80% of the maturity amount was retained by it (OP No.2) illegally and unlawfully in spite of assurances given by it for its payment. Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

3.                      In its reply OP No.1 submitted that the complainants had not taken any prior approval before investing the amount with OP No.2. It was alleged that there was gross negligence on the part of
OP-2 for not maintaining accounts of the Society and also not getting it audited from the Auditors of the Cooperative Department, U.T. Chandigarh. It was stated that the Chief General Manager of the NABARD was requested by the then Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh to direct all the ex-office bearers of the Society to deposit the amount without any delay and not to release their salary/ terminal. It was also pleaded that as OP No. 2 has already filed arbitration cases against the ex-office bearers of the Society for mis-utilizing the funds of the Society and the same are pending for adjudication before the Court of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh, so on the decision of the said cases, further action for recovery of dues against the defaulters would be initiated and the recovered amount would be released proportionately to the FDR holders, as per seniority. Denying all other allegations of the complaint, a prayer was made by OP No.1 for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                OP No.2 in its reply  stated that due to irregularities, the then Managing Committee of the answering OP Society was removed and an Administrator was appointed for running the affairs of the Society by an order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh. It was submitted that arbitration cases filed by it, are pending for decision before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh.  It was stated that as and when the recoveries are made, the realized amount would be distributed amongst the FD holders. It was further stated that even in the recent past, certain funds were realized and the same were distributed equitably @20% amongst the members to whom the amounts were payable including the Complainants, as per the orders of the Registrar, Coop. Societies, U.T. Chandigarh. All other allegations of the complaint have been denied by  OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the same

5.                      Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

6.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

7.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP No.2.

8.                      We have heard arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant/OP No.2 on the point as to whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not. 

9.                      The OP/appellants have admitted that the amount was deposited with them by the complainants. It is also admitted that they were liable to pay interest thereon and in this respect FDRs were issued in favour of the complainants.  It is further admitted that the full amount has not so far been refunded to the complainants.  The ld. District Forum has directed the OP/appellant to refund the full amount alongwith the agreed rate of interest. The OP/appellant, therefore, cannot find any fault with the order because it is their legal duty to refund the amount alongwith interest and, in such matters, no appeal would be maintainable.

10.                   The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the office bearers of the Society who collected money from the depositors, including the complainants, is no more in office and instead an administrator has been appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh. It has been admitted that the office bearers of the OP/Society, with ulterior motives, had pocketed the deposits of the members and proper documents regarding receipts and payments were not maintained.  It was also admitted that elections to the managing committee were not held after January 2003 and the accounts of the society were not audited since 1.4.1994.  It reflects a very sorry state of affairs where a cooperative society is let free to collect the money from unsuspecting depositors and pocket the same without any control exercised by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies till the entire amount has been misappropriated by them. The defaults committed by the Appellant Society are in themselves deficiency in service on their part and, in such circumstances, this appeal cannot be admitted for regular hearing.

11.                   It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that after the Society was superseded, an administrator has been appointed, he, therefore, cannot be expected to make the payment of the amount to the complainants from his own pocket and, therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and should be set aside.  We are unable to agree to this contention of the ld. Counsel firstly because the impugned order is passed against the society and not against the Administrator in his personal capacity and secondly if this argument is accepted as correct then, according to him, no order for payment of the deposited amount and interest should be passed against a Society which has been superseded and for which an Administrator has been appointed.  In fact, there cannot be any such law to protect a Society in which there had been irregularities and where the depositors are not being refunded the amount. Otherwise also, it is a question of execution as to how and from where the payment to such complainants would be made, by the Society through its Administrator, who have obtained an order from the Consumer Fora.  In any case, it cannot be a sufficient ground to admit the appeal for regular hearing.

12.                   The ld. Counsel for the appellant has also argued that litigation costs of Rs.15,000/- has been imposed on the appellant society which are excessive.  In this respect we cannot ignore the various letters (Annexure C-12 to C-15, C-17 and C-20) which were issued by the complainants to get back the amount. Keeping in view the proceedings of the case and the manner in which the Society had proceeded to harass its depositors, who had to approach the Consumer Fora to obtain their hard earned money deposited with the appellant Society, we are of the opinion that the costs cannot be said to be on the higher side. 

13.                   No other point was argued before us.

14.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal to admit it for regular hearing.  The same is accordingly dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

24^th November, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg