REKHA GUPTA Revision Petition no. 1932 of 2011 has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (he State Commission in First Appeal no. 838 of 2008. 2. Petitioner was the opposite party 5 in the complaint. The facts of the case as per respondent nos. 1 to 4 are as follows: 3. Respondent no. 5/ opposite party no.1 is a Society registered under Co-operative Societies Act 1984 having its registered no. 1768 and Shri Satish Kumar Rohila is the President of the society and Shri Sham Singh, Vice President, Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Secretary, Shri Rajiv Kapoor, Joint Secretary, Shri Ramesh Chand Nirankari, Member, Smt Sangeeta Sharma, Member, Shri Jai Raj, Members all are the employees of the Central Bank of India. 4. Respondents are the consumers of respondent no. 5/ opposite party no. 1. On the instigation of office bears of the Society who are the employees of the Central Bank of India, they promised more reward of their savings comparing to the interest of Bank. 5. Respondents invested their savings with OP no. 1 in fixed deposits on different dates. The total amount of all the FDRs of the respondents ia Rs. 1,54,606/- as follows :- (i) N K Jain and Trishal Jain joint FDRs of Rs.58,589/- (ii) N K Jain and Vicky Jain joint FDRs of Rs.12,535/- (iii) N K Jain & Urmila Jain joint FDRs of Rs.51,418/- (iv) Naresh Kumar Gupta & Bala Rani Gupta Rs.32,064/- joint FDRs of -------------- As total balance amount of the FDRs up to Rs.1,54,606/- the maturity date --------------- 6. Respondent 6 & 7/ OP nos. 2 and 3 are having overall control over the Society, i.e., respondent no. 5/ OP no. 1 is registered under the Co-operative Society Act, 1984 and also the respondent no. 6 and 7 protects the interests of depositors by collecting the amount from defaulters and depositing the same into the account of society, but respondent no. 6 and 7 failed to fully protect the interest of depositors and they are wandering door to door for the encashment of their matured FDRs. It is also mandatory on the part of respondent no. 6 to get the account of respondent no. 5 audited regularly at regular intervals of time and to take appropriate action if any irregularity is found and the working of the society. 7. Respondents visited respondent no. 5/ OP no. 1 for the payment of their FDRs as explained above mentioned so many times from the date of their maturity, but the office bearers of respondent no. 5 made excuses and kept the respondents totally in dark. The respondents also approached the respondent 6 & 7 for the payment of their matured FDRs but they got no satisfactory response and the respondents became rolling stones between the OPs. The respondents visited the office of Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Karnal, i.e., respondent. 6 to get the FDRs encashed as the Society is registered with them and the office of Petitioner/ OP no. 5 has complete financial control over the Society of respondent no. 5/ OP 1 but all the efforts of the respondents became fruitless and a list regarding the payment of matured FDRs was not cleared by the OPs. 8. All the transactions of the society were done on the counter of petitioner/ OP no. 5 within the knowledge of the then Manager of the Central Bank of India, Main Branch, Karnal. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to make the payment of FDRs i.e., Annexure I along with upto date prescribed interest in the FDRs till the date of payment is made, with a compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, pain and harassment caused to the respondents by the OPs along with costs of the respondents. 10. Petitioner had been declared as ex parte in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, vide its order dated 17.07.2006, since there was no defence by them before the District Forum. 11. The District Forum vide order dated 28.01.2008 allowed the complaint and observed as under: nitially, complainant no.1 to 6 filed the present complaint but on 14.02.2006, learned counsel for the complainants made a statement, which has been recorded separately, withdrawing the complaint on behalf of the complainant no. 5 & 6. Accordingly, the names of the complainant no. 5 and 6 were struck off from the array of the complainant. Notice of the complaint was given to OPs. In its written reply, OP 1 stated that previously Satish Kumar Rohilla was its Vice President but he had resigned on 26.03.1998 as he has no concern with OP 1, thereafter in any manner so he cannot be held liable. It is stated that now OP 1 is working under the management of Vijay Kumar Sharma, Secretary, Rajiv Kapoor, President, Shyam Singh Vice President, Ramesh Nirankari, Treasurer and Jai Raj Members. It is stated that the amount of the above said FDRs was received by Shri Vijay Kumar Shamr and as a criminal case under Section 420/405 IPC has been lodged against him and the matter is sub judice so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. OP 1 denied any deficiency in service on its part. In their joint written reply, OP 2 and OP 3 stated that as the Secretary of OP 1 had issued separate FDRs to the depositors due to which an embezzlement of Rs.22 lakhs has occurred and for which he is facing trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. It is stated that the said embezzlement could be trace out only after the complaints made by the public to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. It is stated that a resolution was passed in meeting of depositors held by Shri A K Kalia on 05.10.2002, copy of which was received by OP 2 from the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. It is alleged that as per the said resolution. OP 2 had prepared a list of members and made 65% cases of the recovery and had paid 25% of the deposited amount to the members. It is stated that after getting complaints from the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, OP 2 and OP 3 have issued notices under section 104 of the Co-operative Society Act to recover the loan amount and warrants against the defaulting loanees have also been issued under section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. OP 2 and OP 3 denied that the complainants ever visited them. OP 2 and OP 3 denied any deficiency in service on their part. Counsel for the complainant made a statement on 20.02.2007 which has been recorded separately, given up OP 4 being unnecessary party. As none appeared on behalf of OP 5, so it was proceeded ex parte, vide order dated 17.07.2006 passed by this Forum. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their respective stands as taken in the complaint and written replies respectively. The complainants had fixed deposits certain amounts with OP 1. Vide Fixed Deposit Certificates Ex C 2 to Ex C 14 as per details given in the table given above. OP 1 has not denied the receipt of the above said amount from the complainants. OPs have not returned the maturity amount to the complainant on maturity of the above said FDR. Inviting deposits from the general public on the promise of lucrative rates of interest amounts to rendering service to the depositors by way of return of the principal amount and interest thereupon and its failure to do so amounts to deficiency. As OP 1 has received the amount from the complainant and the amount of the above said FDRs have already been matured so non-refunding of the maturity amount minus the loan amount on the maturity date amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP 1. As in their written reply OP 2 and OP 3 have accepted that the account of OP 1 were duly audited by them and they gave detected the embezzlement and are in the process to recover the defaulting borrowers. Besides OP 1 carried out its activities in the premises of OP 5 with its permission and knowledge and OP 5 has not appeared before this Forum to refute the allegations of the complainant so OP 5 is also held liable under vicarious liability for non-refund of the maturity amount of the complainants. OP 4 has been given up being unnecessary party vide order dated 20.02.2007 passed by this Forum. Therefore, in view of the above, OP 1, OP 2, OP 3 and OP 5 are jointly and severally held liable to make payment of the amount to the complainants. For the above said reasons, we direct OP 1 to OP 3 and OP 5 to refund the matured amount of the above FDRs minus the amount already paid to the complainant as per the details given in the list above along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of respective maturity of the said FDRs till refund 12. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the following grounds: t is an admitted case between the parties that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,54,606/- with the appellant-opposite parties vide FDRs fully detailed in paragraph no. 4 of the complaint as well as paragraph no. 1 of the impugned order. It is also admitted case between the parties that after the maturity of the aforesaid FDRs nothing was paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests without assigning any reasons. The District Forum vide its impugned order directed the opposite parties to pay the matured amount in respect of the FDRs in question to the complainant jointly and severally along with interest. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded by the District Forum we are of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly accepted the complainant and we have no reasons to differ with the view taken by the District Forum in the impugned order. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal it is dismissed 13. Hence, the present revision petition. 14. The main grounds for the revision petition are as follows: The State Forum as well as the District Forum failed to consider that no deposit was ever made by the complainants with the applicant Bank. OP No. 5, i.e., the Karnal Central Bank of India, Staff Co-operative Urban (SE) Thrift and Credit Society, Ltd., is a registered Society, totally unconnected with the bank. The said society has been flouted by its members in their individual capacity and not of their capacity of being representative of the bank. Therefore, any alleged malfeasance, committed by the member of the society is the responsibility of the said society and the bank by no stretch of imagination can be held to pay the amount alleged swindled by the members of the said society. The bank has no vicarious liability to make the payment of the FDRs which have been allegedly not paid to the complainants on maturity, it is pertinent to mention here that there is a provision in the Haryana Societies Act for the action against the erring societies and the bank cannot be held to be responsible for making the payment of the defaulting amount. The impugned order is therefore, not sustainable on this ground. The State Forum as well as the District Forum failed to consider that as it is pertinent to mention here that several other complaints detailed in above paragraph of the appeal making the similar allegations of non-payment of FDRs by the society were decided by the Honle Forum vide order dated 20.12.2005 and it has been categorically held by the Forum that the CBI is not responsible for the acts of the office bearers of the Society and the complaints against the bank had been dismissed. The present complaint being of similar nature ought to have been dismissed. The State Forum as well as the District Forum failed to consider that the non-appearance of the bank on 17.07.2006 was not intentional and because of sufficient cause as the earlier officer of the bank could not identify the notice as to be separate one and got transferred. Communication regarding the same was not given to the bank and therefore the appellant bank was not aware of the pendency of the present case before the Honle Forum and came to know only through the receipt of the certified copy of the order through post on 11.02.2008. The ex parte order is therefore, deserves to be set aside. The State Forum as well as the District Forum failed to understand that the several other complaints of similar nature were earlier filed by other complainants with same allegations. The details of the same of the said cases are as under: Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs Karnal Central Bank of India Staff Co-op. thrift and Credit Co-op Society Ltd., Registered Karnal through its President Shri Satish Kumar Rohila (Complaint no. 13/04 decision 20.12.2005). Kimti Lal and Another vs Karnal Central Bank of India Staff Co-op. thrift and Credit Co-op Society Ltd., Registered Karnal through its President Shri Satish Kumar Rohila (Complaint no. 45/04 decision 20.12.2005). Radha Raman Shastri vs Karnal Central Bank of India Staff Co-op. thrift and Credit Co-op Society Ltd., Registered Karnal through its President Shri Satish Kumar Rohila (Complaint no. 879/ 03 decision 20.12.2005). The Present complaint is also the same nature of dispute as the earlier complaints decided by the Honle Forum. The appellant bank was absolved from any liability. The State Forum failed to appreciate that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner herein and the respondents in any manner and it was due to being proceeded ex parte the orders were passed by the District Forum. The District Forum below ought to have looked into the case and the documents placed on record. The District Forum below without looking the facts of the case passed the orders hurriedly and without application of judicial mind. Similarly, the State Forum also failed to apply the judicial mind and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein. In fact no orders can be passed against the petitioner herein as there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondents who are the claimants, i.e., Respondent no. 1 to 4. The State Forum failed to appreciate and erred in holding that the well settled law and established principles of the law of the land and natural justice also demands that nobody should go unheard. Had an opportunity been granted to the appellant herein it would establish that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent nos.1 to 4. Even respondent no. 5 is an independent body controlled by respondent no. 6 and 7 and the petitioner herein who is a nationalised bank has nothing to do with the dealings between the respondents herein nor there is any iota of any allegations against the petitioner bank. Despite that the orders were passed by the District Forum against the petitioner bank and even the appeal by State Forum has been dismissed. The State Forum and the District Forum wrongly held that the petitioner Bank was responsible. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 1 in person. 16. It is an undisputed fact that the respondents had invested in different FDRs with respondent no. 5/ OP no. 1. It is also a fact that on the maturity they did not get any amount. The only issue to be decided as to whether the petitioner is also guilty of deficiency of service/ unfair trade practice and vicarious liability for non-refund of the maturity amount to the respondent. 17. It is seen from the complaint that the respondents had invested their savings with OP no. 1 and as mentioned in the order of the District Forum the amount of the above said FDRs was received by Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma who was the Secretary of the respondent no.5. The only allegation made against the petitioner by respondent nos. 1 to 4 is that, t is also necessary to mention here that all the transactions of the Society were done on the counter of the OP no. 5 (Petitioner) without the knowledge of then Manager of Central Bank of India, main Branch, Karnal The District Forum vide their order dated 28.01.2009 has held that the petitioner is liable only on the grounds that the P no. 5 has not appeared before this Forum to refute the allegations of the complainant so OP no. 5 is also held liable under vicarious liability for non-refund of the maturity amount of the complainant The State Commission in their order has nowhere discussed the specific appeal of the petitioner and given any reasons for their decision to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner/ appellant and upheld the order of the District Forum with regard to the vicarious liability of the petitioner. 18. Respondent no. 1 who is present in person could not give any evidence or argument to establish that the petitioner was also in collusion with respondent no. 5/ OP 1. On the other hand he has stated that he has already received the money and since the incident took place long ago and further he has got no records and no memory or facts of the case. Further, he could not establish that there was any privity of contract between respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the petitioner. In a similar case pertaining to Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs Karnal Central Bank of India Staff Co-op. Thrift and Credit Co-op Society, Registered Karnal through its President Shri Satish Rohilla, Central Bank of India, Main Market, Sector 13 Branch, Urban Estate, Karnal and Ors., the District Forum vide its order dated 20.12.2005 had dismissed the complaint against the petitioner holding that either they have received the amounts from the complainant nor they have any authority to refund the same to the complainant so no direction can be issued them 19. In view of the above-mentioned facts, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order with regard to liability of the petitioner and also the District Forum with regard to vicarious liability of the petitioner for non-refund of the maturity amount are set aside, with no order as to costs.