For the Complainant:                         Adv. Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra

                                                            Adv. Dr. Laxmi Narayan Dash

                                                            Adv. Sri Dillip Kumar Praharaj

For the Opposite Party-1:                Authorised Representative –Assistant Registrar,    

                                                         Cooperative Socities, Aska Circle, Aska.

  For the Opposite Party – 2 & 3:        Adv. Sri Niranjan Nayak.

                                                Date of Filling:            14.10.2011

                                                Date of Disposal:        03.06.2022

Sri P. Surya Rao, President

The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint under Sec. 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Parties (in short OPs) and for Redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

Brief Fact of the Case:-

The case of the complainant in nut shell is that he had made six deposits with the Bhanjanagar Urban Cooperative Bank in the year 2001. The deposits made by him are as follows:-

After maturity date, the bank remained silent. The complainant approached cooperative Department and issued legal notice to them. The opposite party no.3 has paid as follows:-

The complainant further stated that, he is yet to receive Rs.1,21,313/- towards principal and sum of Rs.2,60,521/- towards interest, besides compensation and cost. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

The Registrar, Cooperative Bank (OP no.1) filed his written version stating that there is no consumer relationship between the Complainant and the op no.1 and that op no.1 is a mis-joinder of party. The Bhanjanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a primary cooperative Bank registered, under the Cooperative Societies Act in the 1946 and it has been liquidated on 20.05.2003 under Sec. 133(A) of the Act, and the liquidator was appointed under Sec. 13 of the Co-operative Societies act and since then the affairs of the bank vests with the liquidator. The op no.1 has nothing to do with the deposits made by the consumers with the Bhanjanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd. The opposite party no.3 has to set up assets and liabilities of the bank. The O.P. 1 has no nexus with the day to day affairs of the bank and that the O.P. 1 has no role in the refund of deposit money. There is no deficiency in services in the part of the O.P. 1. Hence the O.P. 1 should be deleted as party to this case.

The op 2 and 3 filed their joint written version and admitted that, the complainant has made some deposits in the Bhanjanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd but statement of entitlements is misleading. On the orders of RBI rejecting the license to carry-on the banking business of Bhanjanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd, it was wound up with effect from 20.05.2003 on the orders of the registrar of Cooperative Bank and OP no. 3 was appointed as liquidator.

            It is submitted by OP no. 2 & 3 that since the Bhanjanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd was wound up the deposits made in the bank will carry interest only upto the date of liquidation. The total deposits and interest the complainant is entitled is mention as follows.

1. F.D. No. 6032 has total amount of Rs. 78,032/-(principal Rs. 60,000 + interest Rs. 18,032/-).
2. F.D. No. 1514 has total amount of Rs. 64,353/-(principal. Rs. 50,000 + intrest Rs. 14,353/-).
3. F.D. No. 6051 has total amount of Rs. 65,962/- (principal Rs. 51,250 + interest Rs. 14,472/-).
4. F.D. No. 1515 has total amount of Rs. 64,353/- (principal Rs. 50,000 + interst Rs. 14,353/-).
5.  F.D. No. 1516 has total amount of Rs. 51,483/- (principal Rs. 40,000 + interst Rs. 11,483/-).
6. F.D. No. 1505 has total amount of Rs. 64,353/- (principal Rs. 50,000 + interst Rs. 14,353/-).

It is further averred that the complainant already been paid as follows.

            The liquidator has paid the above amount with much difficulty by was recovery of loans from different loanee members. The balance of Rs. 2,08,599/- will be paid as and when the funds are available. The o.ps 2 & 3 further stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of o.p(s),

It is also averred that the bank has not been impleaded as a party in this case. The complaint is barred by time and non-joinder of party. There is no reason why the complainant should be aggrieved against the op(s). This complainant against op(s) is not maintainable. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The complainant in his evidence stated that he has given details of deposits in the Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank and O.P. 3 has agreed in is written version that the complainant is entitled to                 Rs. 2,08,555/- and asked that O.P. 3 be directed to refund the amount.

In his written argument the complainant interalia stated that he filed the complaint due to deficiency in service in the part of O.P(S). The fixed deposits were renewed with an agreement. And instead of payment of assured money after maturity the O.P. 3 remained silent, and is not serious on payment inspite of assurances.

The O.P. 2 & 3 in his written argument have submitted that the complaint had the contract of deposit/repayment with the management of the concerned  bank only but the management of the bank has not been made/impleaded as a party to this case by the complainant, though the same is necessary.

The management of concern bank/Bank is a necessary party to the present case and the complainant has failed to make them party to the case. This is deliberate and intentional non-compliance on the part of the complainant as such the complainant is not entitled for reliefs claimed they relied on the deposit insurance a credit guarantee corporation Act, 1961 and “Deposit insurance & credit guarantee corporation General Regulation 1961”

Issues –

1. Whether the consumer case is hit by limitation period?
2. Whether the case is bad due to non joinder of necessary party?
3. Whether the complainant is a consumer in relation to O.P(S)?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs claimed for or not?

Issue No. 2 –

In this issue it has to be seen whether the complaint is maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party? In this complaint the complainant has arrayed register of Co-op Bank as O.P. 1, Deputy Registrar as O.P. 2 & the liquidator as O.P. 3. The O.P. 1 in his Written Version stated that he has nothing to do with the deposits made by the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 has no nexus with day to day affairs of the bank, Hence he should be deleted as party in this complaint case.

O.P. 2 & 3 stated that there is no reasons why the complainant should be aggrieved against O.P(s). The consumer case is not maintainable. The complaint is barred by time and non-joindor of party. During the course of argument he stated that Bhanjanar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a necessary party. The complainant has not made the M.D. or any management of Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd, as party to this case. They are the necessary parties of the case.

            Perused  Annexure 2. It shows that the Registrar Co-Op Bank as per Sec – 133 (a) of the O.C.S. 1962, has made order for winding of the Bhanjanar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. The said Letter (Annexure-2) reveals that on 22.04.1998 to 02.05.1998 the financial position of Bhanjanagar Urban Corporate Bank Ltd was highly unsatisfactory. The Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd has applied to R.B.I. U/s 22 of Banking Regulation Act – 1949 for grant of license to carryon banking business which was kept in abeyance & the bank was advised to rectify the irregularity which the bank failed. The said letter Annexure – 2 bearing  Letter No. XX.22/92.BK-5.7942, Dated 20.05.2003 shows that the bank continued as a weak bank for 15 years. There was depletion in capital and reserves. There was over dues. The bank incurred losses for last 3 years and accumulated loss as on 31.03.1998 was Rs. 86 lakhs. The bank has defaulted in the maintenance of cash reserve and liquid assets on many occasions. The bank has violated the direction of R.B.I on the maximum limit and advances by granting unsecured loans to directors. The bank ceased to work with effect from 1999. When the bank ceases to work since 1999 how come Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd accepted deposits in the year 2001 from the complainant is not known.

            When the banks condition was not solvent and the activities are questionable how come the complainant deposited such huge amount with bank. It is not known whether he has done after due enquiry about the affairs of the bank. Under this circumstance Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd is a necessary party. The complainant has not made the management/directors of the Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd or the management of the bank as a party to the complaint. They are the necessary parties.

In this regard perusal of case record shows that a petition was filed by the opposite parties asking for a direction to the complainant to implead the management of the bank as party to this complaint case however the petition is disposed off on 20.06.2017 observing that since the complainant is not interested to implead the management of the bank as party in this dispute, hence. The petition of the O.P.(S) was rejected.

The management of the bank Bhanjanagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd is a necessary party and the complainant has not made the management or directors of the bank as party to this complaint case. Hence, this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

Issue No – 1 –

Whether the complaint is filed within period of limitation? The initial cause of action arose in the year 2001. When the complainant made all the deposits in the bank. The bank was liquidated on 20.05.2003 when the bank was liquidated and the O.P. 3 is appointed as liquidator. As per the complaint fixed deposits were matured in 05.04.2005 and 07.04.2005 when he was not paid all the amounts. Thus the cause of action was extended upto 2005. The complaint kept quiet and the present complaint case is filed on 14.10.2011.

According Sec – 24’A’ – of the consumer. Protection Act, 1986 the period of limitation is two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. In this case the complaint has been filed on 14.10.2011 i.e. after the period of limitation is over. Hence this complaint is not maintainable.

            It is found the present complaint case is bad due to non-joinder of necessary party and is also not filed within the statutory period of limitation. Hence this case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above findings there is no need to discuss other issues.

            The complaint case is dismissed without cost.

Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.

This order is pronounced on 03^rd day of June 2022 in open Commission.     A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet. After compliance the case record be consigned to record room.

                                                                Sd/-

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

I agree             MEMBER

                   Sd/-

I agree             MEMBER (W)

• Evidence on Affidavit not filed by the Complainant.
• Written Argument filed by the Complainant.
• Memo of Citation by the complainant 13.09.2021

LIST OF EXHIBITS:-

On behalf of the Complainant:-

1. Ext. 1 - Fixed Deposit Receipt no.:6032/17.01.2001 = Rs.60,000
2. Ext. 2 - Cumulative Deposit Receipt no.: 1514/07.03.2001= Rs.50,000
3. Ext. 3 - Fixed Deposit Receipt no.: 6051/07.03.2001= Rs.51,250
4. Ext. 4 - Cumulative Deposit Receipt no.: 1515/07.03.2001= Rs.50,000
5. Ext. 5 - Cumulative Deposit Receipt no.: 1516/07.03.2001= Rs.40,000
6. Ext. 6 - Cumulative Deposit Receipt no.: 1509/01.03.2001= Rs.50,000
7. Ext. 7 - Advocate Notice Dtd:NIL
8. Ext. 8 - Legal Notice for Refund noticed to Liquidator No.:2120/Dtd:02.09.2010

• The complainant has not filed any agreement papers for making the fixed deposits with Bhanjanar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.

On behalf of the OP No,1:-

NIL

On behalf of the OP No.: 2 & 3:-

1. Ext. 1 - Order under Sec.133-4(11) of the OCS Act, 1962 vide No.:7942/Dtd:20.05.2003

Evidence of Affidavit filed by the OP No.: 2 & 3.

Written Argument filed by the OP no.: 2 & 3 – on 06.12.2016

Additional Written Argument by the OP No 2 & 3 – on 18.09.2018.

Memo of Citation filed by the OP No.: 2 & 3 – on 17.02.2021