Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/610/2013

Karam Singh s/o sh.Natha Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Radaur Jamuna Coop. - Opp.Party(s)

Karnail Singh

19 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 610 of  2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 21.08.2013

                                                                                          Date of decision: 19.01.2017.

Karam Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Natha Ram @ Nathu Ram, resident of Village Ghespur, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                               Versus

1. The Radaur Jamuna Co-operative House Building Society, Opp. Telephone Exchange, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager/Secretary.
2. The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation, Bays No. 49-52, IInd Floor, Sector-2 Panchkula, through its Managing Director.
3. Tara Chand Chopra, Ex. Secretary, The Radaur Jamuna Coop. House Building Society, Radaur, resident of Mata Mohalla, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                   ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Karnail Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.

              Ms. Sonia Rohilla, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

              None for respondent No.3. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                       Complainant Karam Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts, of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had obtained a house loan of Rs. 70,000/- from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OP) for the term of 20 years in the month of December,1999. The said amount was released to the complainant in two installments. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the OPs obtained original sale deed and original map from the complainant and it was assured that the said original documents will be returned to the complainant on final payment i.e. after clearing the total loan. After obtaining the loan, the complainant started paying installments and including interest to the OP No.1 vide valid receipt i.e. Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt No. 2226 dated 5.12.2000, Rs. 2400/- and Rs. 3200/- vide receipts No. 1827, 1826 dated 22.1.2000. These receipts were issued by Op No.3 Tara chand, the then Secretary. Thereafter, the complainant wanted to deposit the amount in lump sum and required statement of account and according to the statement of account a sum of Rs. 2,72,000/- was due. Accordingly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,72,000/- vide receipt No. 502 dated 05.06.2013 through DD No. 471874 dated 05.06.2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Radaur. The complainant was also forced to deposit Rs. 19,000/- and the same was deposited vide receipt No. 501 dated 05.06.2013.  No dues certificate dated 05.06.2013 was also issued to the complainant with regard to the said loan amount. After clearing the entire loan, the complainant approached the Op No.1 and OP No.3 Tara Chand and requested to return the original sale deed and original map of the property but they did not adhere for the genuine request of the complainant. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to return the original sale deed and original map of the property of complainant without demanding any illegal amount from the complainant under threat and also to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, 2400/- and Rs. 3200/- received by the OPs as the same were not adjusted in the loan account and OPs be further directed to pay compensation as well litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence OP No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.06.2014.  OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties; complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; the present complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on account of incomplete and improper pleadings. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. As the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- through society i.e. Op No.1 from the OP No.2 in the month of December, 1999. The said loan is terms loan for 20 years. Moreover, a huge outstanding amount of Rs. 3,20,489.27 including interest is standing on the name of complainant which is unpaid as per statement of account dated 30.09.2013. The present complaint is not legally and technically maintainable as the same is barred by the provisions of 102, 112, 124 and 128 of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. Hence, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint have been denied and controverted the plea taken in the complaint. It has been further mentioned that as per section 102 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 there is a provision for referring the disputes for Arbitration and further as per section 112 of the said Act, the Registrar or a person empowered by him to be treated as Civil Court and as per section 124 of the said Act mandatory notice of 2 months is necessary for instituting the suit against Co-operative Society. Further, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred as per section 128 of the said Act. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

4.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable; there is no particular relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties; complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service in terms of the provision contained in Consumer Protection Act. As the matter in dispute is related to the year 2013 whereas on 17.07.2004 the OP No.3 had resigned from the post of Secretary of the Radaur Jamuna Co-operative House Building Society, by handing over the record of the society to its Development Officer Sh. Ghan Shayam Singh Rana, thus, thereafter no transaction of any kind has been made out on part of Op No.3, no certificate of any kind has also been issued to the complainant as all the transaction has been made out by Sh.Sukhbir Singh i.e. Secretary of the Society. Hence, the Op No.3 has no liability towards the payment made by the complainant and any account of the society. Hence, the present complaint is not tenable in the eyes of law and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint have been denied and controverted the plea taken in the complaint. It has been further mentioned that as per section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 there is a provision for referring the disputes for Arbitration and further as per section 112 of the said Act, the Registrar or a person empowered by him to be treated as Civil Court and as per section 124 of the said Act mandatory notice of 2 months is necessary for instituting the suit against Cooperative Society. Further, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred as per section 128 of the said Act. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photocopy of “No Dues Certificate” as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 2,72,000/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 19,000/- as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure C-4 and C-5, Photo copy of DD amounting to Rs. 2,72,000/- as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 2400/- as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 3200/- as Annexure C-9,  Photo copy of  rough estimate as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of sale deed alongwith site plan etc. as Annexure C-11 and closed his evidence.

6.                       On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence attested copy of account statement as Annexure R-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     Counsel for the OP No.3 failed to adduce any evidence, hence its evidence was closed by court order dated 18.05.2016

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that despite depositing the entire loan amount, the OPs Society has not returned the original sale deed and original map of the property of the complainant and also further prayed to direct the OPs No.1 & 2  Society to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, 2400/- and Rs. 3200/- received by OPs No.1 & 2 and draw our attentions towards the No Dues Certificate issued by OP No.1 on dated 05.06.2013 (Annexure C-1) and receipts of amount Annexure C-2 and C-3 and copy of ledger Annexure C-4 and C-5 and photo copy of cheque amounting to Rs. 2,72,000/- Annexure C-6 and other receipts as Annexure C-7 to C-10 vide which the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount to OP No.1 Society i.e. Radaur Cooperative Society.

10.                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 argued that as the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- through society of the Op No.1 from OPNo.2 in the month of December, 1999 and the said loan was repayable in 20 years. Moreover, a huge amount of Rs. 3,20,489.27 including interest is standing in the name of complainant as per account statement dated 30.09.2013. Learned counsel for Op No.2 also draw our attention towards the account statement Annexure R-2 and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.2.

11.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable before the Forum firstly on the ground that as per provision of section 102, 112, 124 and 128 of the Haryana Co-operative Society Act, 1984 this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant had not issued two months mandatory notice to the OPs before filing the present complaint as provided under section 124 of the said Act and without serving two months’ notice, no suit shall be instituted against the Cooperative Societies or any of its officer in respect of any act touching the business of Society. Even, the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred under section 128 of the said Act. Furthermore, as per section112 of the said Act the Registrar, or the persons empowered by him to be treated as Civil Court.  Furthermore, the matter involved in the present complaint is relating to the account whether the entire loan has been repaid by the complainant or not which cannot be decided in a summary way and for such type of cases Civil Court is the best platform if there is any jurisdiction. Even, from the perusal of the NOC issued by Op No.1 it seems that complainant had deposited the entire loan amount but as per version of the Op No.2 a huge amount i.e. Rs. 3,20,489.27 as mentioned in para No.5 of the written statement of Op No.2 was standing up to 30.09.2013. Meaning thereby, that either account of the Op No.2 is wrong or Op No.1 has not deposited the loan amount received from complainant with the OP No.2. Such type of complicated question cannot be decided by this Forum in the absence of any cogent evidence which requires elaborate evidence.

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law/ authority to redress his grievances, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 19.01.2017.

                                                        

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                    MEMBER