Haryana

StateCommission

RP/61/2016

MADAN SEHGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM MEHAR - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ MAKKAR

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:  61 of 2016

Date of Institution:      13.07.2016

Date of Decision :       22.09.2016

 

1.     Madan Sehgal, Founder and Honorary Secretary, Haryana Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Railway Road, near Bata Showroom, Rohtak, Resident of House No.105, Sector-1, Rohtak.

2.     Sunil Sehgal s/o Sh. Madan Sehgal, Manager, Haryana Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Railway Road, near Bata Showroom, Rohtak Resident of House No.150, Sector-1, Rohtak.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.3 & 4

Versus

 

1.      Ram Mehar w/o Sh. Munshi Ram, Resident of Village and Post Office Singhpura, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      The Haryana Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Rohtak through President Ved Parkash, Resident of H.No.1491/4, Shiv Nagar, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak also employed with State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rohtak.

3.      Parveen Kumar Jain, Resident of H.No.845, Sector-1, Rohtak Vice President, The Haryana Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Rohtak also employed with S.B.I., Bhalaut.

4.      Rajender Patni, Cashier, The Haryana Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Rohtak.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1,2&5

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Sh. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for petitioners.

Sh. Mukesh Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondents No.2 to 4 –Performa. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

                        The Haryana Bank Staff Co-operative Urban (Salary Earners) Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), is a registered society. The petitioners-opposite parties No.3 & 4 and opposite parties No.2 and 5 (respondents No.3 and 4 herein), are the office bearers of the opposite party No.1.

2.                Ram Mehar-complainant/respondent No.1, purchased Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) from the opposite parties. The maturity amount of the FDR was Rs.30,863/-. After the maturity date, the complainant approached the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of FDR but they did not pay the amount. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.                During the hearing of complaint, the opposite parties No.3 and 4-petitioners, filed an application seeking direction to the complainant to collect the amount of FDRs from the office of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak (for short “A.R. Co. Operative Societies”).

4.                The District Forum vide order dated May 31^st, 2016 dismissed the application. Hence, the instant revision petition.

5.                The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amount of FDR of the complainant as well as of other depositors, have been deposited with the A.R. Co. Operative Societies and therefore the complainant can collect the amount of her FDR from them.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. 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 FDR of complainant with A.R. Co. Operative Societies. That amount pertains to deposit pursuance to order of A.R. Co. Operative Societies, qua embezzlement of Society funds/assets. 

7.                In view of the above, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

 

Announced 22.09.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL