Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.4.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to pay to the complainants, in whose names the FDRs were originally issued by them, jointly and severally the following amounts; (i) Rs.2,27,930/- (i.e. Rs.73474/- to Sh.Sant Lal, Rs.1,07,448/- to Ms. Monica Garg and Rs.47,008/ to Sh. Deepak Garg) being the total maturity amount of the five FDRs of the complainants, as shown in tabular chart in Para No.2 of the order. (ii) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. (iii) Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. It was further directed that the order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the original deposited amount of FDRs i.e. Rs.2,07,210/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the value date of issue i.e.11.7.2007 till the date of actual payment, whereas the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall also carry interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e.24.04.2010 till realization thereof. 2. Complainant No.1, after availing of VRS from Food Corporation of India in the year 2004, on being allured by OPs No.2 and 4, paid his retiremental benefits(money) to OPs No.2 and 4, for onward depositing the same with the State Bank of Patiala in Fixed Deposits. They instead of depositing the same with State Bank of Patiala in Fixed Deposits, deposited the amount of the complainants with OP No.1 – State Bank of Patiala Employees Cooperative U.S.E. Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. C/o State Bank of Patiala in terms of Fixed Deposits, as under: - Sr. No. | FDR No. | Name of the depositor: | Amount Deposited (Rs.) | Maturity Value (Rs.) | Date of Maturity | 1. | 7517 | Sant Lal | 24,420 | 26,862 | 11-7-2008 | 2. | 7519 | Monica Garg | 48,840 | 53,724 | 11-7-2008 | 3. | 7520 | Monica Garg | 48,840 | 53,724 | 11-7-2008 | 4. | 7522 | Deepak Garg | 42,735 | 47,008 | 11-7-2008 | 5. | 7522 | Sant Lal | 42,375 | 46,612 | 11-7-2008 | | Total Amount: | 2,07,210 | 2,27,930 | |
It was further stated that the complainants, thus, invested a total sum of Rs.2,07,210/- on 28.3.2008 (value dated 11.7.2007) with the OPs in terms of the FDRs, as shown in the aforesaid table, with common date of maturity as 11.7.2008. It was further stated that on maturity of the FDRs, in the year 2008, when the complainants approached the OPs for releasing the amount of the said FDRs, they (OPs) refused to pay the same, on the ground, that OP No.1 was short of funds. It was further stated that non- refund of the maturity amounts, on the date of maturity i.e. 11.7.2008, on the part of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed by them. 3. Initially, Sh. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, appeared, on behalf of OP Nos.1 and 2, whereas, Sh. A. N. Pahwa OP No.4 appeared in person. They did not appear later on, nor any authorized agent appeared on their behalf. Accordingly OP Nos.1, 2 and 4, were proceeded against ex parte vide order 30.8.2010. None appeared on behalf of OP No.3, so, he was also proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.9.2010. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, accepted the complaint and passed the order , in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellants/OPs. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/OPs, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellants, did not dispute the factum that the amount, in question, was deposited by the complainant, though, at the instance of OP Nos.2 & 4, with appellant No.1( OP NO.1)a registered Society. He further submitted that crores of rupees advanced as loan by OP No., Society, to various members, are yet to be recovered. He further submitted that the amount could be paid to the complainants only, as per the seniority list. He further submitted that earlier a complaint was filed in the Lok Adalat by the complainant which was dismissed and they were relegated to the remedy of approaching the Civil Court. He further submitted that even the District Forum had no jurisdiction, in respect of the dispute, arising between the Members of the Society as envisaged by Section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. He further submitted that, at present, appellant No.1, had no money to pay to the complainants. He further submitted that, even the complainants/respondents did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as they deposited the aforesaid money with the OPs for earning higher rate of interest. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in accepting the complaint and granting relief. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage. Deposit of amounts, in question, by the complainants/respondents, at the instance of OP NOs.2 & 4, President and Secretary of OP NO.1 is not in dispute. Annexure 1 to 5 are the photocopies of various FDRs, issued in the name of the complainants, and the maturity date of all the FDRs is mentioned as 11.7.2008. These FDRs were issued by OP NO.1 Society on 28.3.2008(value date 11.7.2007). These were duly signed by the President, Secretary and the Treasurer of the said Society. It was the duty of the OPs to pay the amount of FDRs, to the complainants, when the same matured, alongwith interest, but they failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, was right, in holding that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service to the complainant. 10. Coming to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, it may be stated here, that Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, did not bar the remedy of filing a complaint, under the Act, before the Consumer Fora. Section -3 of the Act clearly lays down that the remedy under the same is in addition to and not in derogation of the remedies, available under other Acts. In Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. Unitedvaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.-I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC), Nawal Kishore Kashyap Vs. Bihar State Housing Co-operative Federation Ltd. & Ors.-II (2009) CPJ 47 (NC) and KEB Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. V. Munivenkatappa-2006(3) CLT 302 (NC) such a question was raised, but it was repelled, by the Hon’ble National Commission holding that even where there is a provision for arbitration, where the dispute between the parties is to be decided, by conciliation or by some other authority, the Consumer Fora would still have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, because the remedy, under Section 3 of the Act, has been afforded in addition to any other remedy, available to the aggrieved party. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs & Ors.-I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), it was held that the remedy under the 1986 Act, is in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies available. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs & Ors’s case(supra) there was a dispute, between the members and the management of a Cooperative Society, which under Section 90 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, was to be decided ,by the Registrar. In that case too, a similar argument, was raised, but was not accepted. Under these circumstances, the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, and as such, the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. 11. The mere fact, that earlier a complaint was filed by the complainants before the Lok Adalat, and the same was dismissed, on the ground, that the disputed questions of law and fact were involved, and it would be appropriate if the complainants approached the Civil Court, for the desired relief , would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of Section 3 of the Act. It was a simple case of handing over the money by the complainants, on the allurement of complainants for deposit of the same in the State Bank of Patiala, but, on the other hand, in violation of such instructions, given by the complainants, they ( OP Nos.2 & 4) deposited the same with OP No.1 Society. The OPs were, therefore, required to pay the amount when the FDRs matured, but they refused to do so. No complicated question of law, and fact, was involved, in this case, which required recording of exhaustive evidence critical analysis thereof. Under these circumstances, order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Lok Adalat, did not debar the complainants from filing a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without substance, merits dismissal and the same stands rejected. 12. Deposit of retrial benefits, in the FDRs, by the complainant to earn interest thereon, for supplementing their income, for livelihood, did not constitute the activity of money lending, at a large scale, for earning profits. This activity of the complainants, therefore, is not of commercial nature. The OPs were thus, the service providers and the complainants were the consumers. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants is, thus, rejected. 13. If OP NO.1 has no money, at present , that is not the headache of the complainants. If the loans were advanced by OP No.1, to fictitious loanees, and the recovery of the amount, running in crores of rupees, has not been effected, that cannot make the complainants/respondents remediless. Before advancing loan, out of the amount, deposited by the depositors, the OPs were required to properly verify the financial condition and the genuineness of the loanees. If the loanees were financial unsound or fictitious, and the loan was advanced, without obtaining any sound security/surety of any movable or immovable property, by the OPs, then the complainants/respondents cannot be blamed. At this stage, it cannot be ordered that the payment be made to the complainants/respondents seniority-wise. The amount was deposited in the year 2007. Now it is 2011. If the recovery is not made by the OPs/appellants from the loanees for years together that cannot deprive the complainants of their hard-earned money indefinitely. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without substance, stands rejected. 14. The impugned order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
