ISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 82 of 10-4-2019

Decided on : 26-06-2023

1. Amanpreet Kaur aged about 27 years D/o Sh. Lakhvir Kaur R/o Gali No.11, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda.

2. Lakhvir Kaur D/o Mohinder Singh R/o Gali No.11, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Registrar, Punjab Co-operative Societies Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. Deputy Registrar, Punjab Co-operative Societies Ltd., Mini Secretariat, Floor No.3, Bathinda.

3. Assistant Registrar, Punjab Co-operative Societies Ltd., Mini Secretariat, Floor No.3, Bathinda.

4. The Bank Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Devi Dial who is now confined in Central Jail, Bathinda. (deleted vide order dated 16-5-2019)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. B.S Maan, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Ex-parte.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

1. The complainant Amanpreet Kaur & another (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against Punjab Co-operative Societies Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that they invested money with The Bank Co-Operative Urban (Salary Earners) Thrift & Credit Society Ld. Bathinda in the shape of FDRs in following manner :-

3. It is alleged that at the time of investing the money by the complainants, the opposite parties assured/agreed the complainants that the opposite parties will pay the FDR amount after 1 years with 13% interest P.A. and the official of opposite parties took the signature of the complainants on blank and printed papers and issued the above said FDRs.

4. It is further alleged that after the maturity of the above said FDRs the complainants went to the office of opposite party No.4 The Bank Co-Operative Urban (Salary Earners) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Bathinda, but has shocked to see that the bank premises was locked and a notice pasted under the signatures of Amritpal of opposite party No. 3. Thereafter complainants filed applications before SSP Bathinda on 5.6.2018 and before Asstt. Registrar Cooperative society on 9.10.2018. An investigation was conducted and during investigation it was found that Devi Lal s/o Chunni Lal fled away and now the office of society (opposite party) is sealed by Asstt. Registrar. All the records are in possession of opposite party No.2 and 3 and FIR No. 17 dated 29.7.2018 u/s 408/420 IPC was registered on 29.7.2018. As all the records are in possession of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and they are wholly-solly incharge of opposite party No. 4, so they are liable to pay the amount mentioned above alongwith uptodate interest from the investment till its realization.

5. It is also alleged that complaint was also filed by Balwant Sing S/o Sh. Bachittar Singh Ramana R/o H.No22315, Shant Nagar, St.No.2, 100ft Road, Bathinda against the Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Service Limited before Hon'ble Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was decided in favour of said Balwnat Singh on 11.7.2017 and many of the cases were decided against the societies.

6. It is alleged that the complainants many times approached the opposite parties and requested them to refund the amount alongwith upto date interest i.e. 3,60,000/- but the opposite parties did not listen and kept on harassing and humiliating the complainant without any reason and cause. Due to aforesaid act of the opposite parties, the complainants have suffered great mental tension, agony botheration harassment and also financial loss for which the complainants claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- as damages.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.13,81,040/- with interest @13% p.a. from the date of investment and pay Rs. Rs,2,40,000/- as compensation on account of mental, physical and financial harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 4 was deleted from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 16-5-2019. However, opposite party No.4 was again impleaded as party vide order dated 1.4.2022 and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.12.2022.

9. Upon notice, at the initial stage, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 put an apperance through counsel and filed joint written reply. Therefter, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and such, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte.

10. In written reply, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form as the complainants have sought recovery of Rs.13,81,040/- alongwith interest i.e. Rs.3,60,000/- regarding which the complainants should have filed suit for recovery by paying advalorem court fee. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action itself as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite parties as such the same is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation under section 14(1) (d) of the Act as the complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate its claim for compensation against the replying opposite parties. That no notice under section 79 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961 has been served upon the opposite parties as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint under the provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961 as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. On merits, the opposite parties has pleaded that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 do not accept the FDRs and nor pay any interest thereon, Because it is not the business of the opposite parties rather they are the registration authority of cooperative societies. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have further pleaded that they have not received any amount of FDRs from the complainants, thus, they are not liable to pay any amount.

12. In support of their complaint, the complainants have tendered into evidence documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7).

13. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar dated 25.6.2019 (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex.OP-1/3).

14. Learned counsel for complainants has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainants that the complainants have proved that they have deposited amount in the FDR Account. Opposite parties have denied this fact mainly for want of knowledge. The complainant has produced photocopy of FDRs (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3). It is also admitted fact that this amount is payable to the complainant. There is no rebuttal to this documentary evidence. Therefore, the documentary evidence proves the case of the complainant.

15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that opposite parties have pleaded that jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under the provisions Punjab Co-operative Societies Act.

    To support these contentions, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon:-

    i) 2004 AIR (SC) 448 Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others.

    ii) 2014 (78) RCR (Civil) 113 Siddarth Dalit Motor Vahatuk Co-op. Society Vs. Sanjay Dadu Sasane and Anr.

    iii) 2012 (1) CLT 199 Anil Pahwa Vs. Baldeep Singh & Other.

16. The pleading of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in written reply is that the complainants have not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 & 80 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Complainants have not claimed refund of amount. They have not produced any evidence to prove the deposit of amount. Therefore, complainants do not fall within the purview of U/s 35 of 'Act'.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record and case law cited by learned counsel for complainant.

18. Opposite parties have pleaded that as per provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. The matter was examined by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Anil Pahwa Vs. Baldeep Singh (Supra) and it was observed that Section 3 of 'Act' confers additional remedy on the Consumer Commission. The matter of refund or deposits where the amount has not been refunded by Co-operative Society in respect of provisions under the Co-operative Society Act, Consumer Commission would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others (Supra), has observed that the remedy of Consumer Commission is in addition to and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts. It was rather further observed that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to decide the dispute is not barred because, even the remedy of arbitration provided under the Co-operative Societies Act. In the case of Siddarth Dalit Motor Vahatuk Co-op. Society (Supra) similar objections of jurisdiction of this Commission was raised by society. Hon'ble State Commission, Maharashtra held that objection is not tenable.

    Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well Hon'ble National Commission, jurisdiction of this Commission is not barred and complaint is maintainable before this Commission.

19. Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainants have pleaded that they have deposited Rs. 13,81,040/- in FDRs Account. To prove this fact, complainants have placed on record photocopy of FDRs (Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-3). These documents prove that complainants have deposited Rs. 13,81,040/- with the opposite parties. Till date no amount has been refunded to complainants without any fault on their part. Opposite parties have not produced any rebuttal evidence to contradict this evidence of the complainants. In the written version also, opposite parties have given evasive reply. The opposite parties were duty bound to make the payment of hard earned amount lying in FDRs of complainants, in time. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

20. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the following amount of FDRs with interest for 13% P.A. for the date of deposit till realization:-

    FDR No.	Date	Amount
    3662	06/05/17	Rs.2,83,560/-
    3664	30/05/17	Rs. 7,37,250/-
    3663	01/09/17	Rs. 3,60,230/-

     

21. It is made clear that since the complaint has been filed against Registrar Punjab Co-operative Society and Deputy Registrar and Asst. Registrar, these authorities will not be personally liable for making payment. The payment is to be made from the account/assets of the society i.e. The Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Bathinda.

22. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

23. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

24. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    26-06-2023

    (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member