Punjab

Sangrur

CC/52/2018

Ram Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

                 

                                                                  Complaint no. 52                                                                                       

                                                                  Instituted on:  08.02.2018                                                                                    

                                                                  Decided on:    10.08.2018

 

Ram Dass aged about 55 years son of Mehar Dass resident of Badbar Road, Mahanta De Kothe, Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.       

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

 

1.       SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Near Liberty Show Room, backside Post-Office, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.       SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Limited  through its Chairman, Head Office Outside Sunami Gate, Above IDBI Bank, Sangrur-148001;

3.       Sandeep Kumar Jindal son of Kulbhushan Kumar Jindal Executive  Member of SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Near Liberty Show Room, backside Post Office, Sangrur.                 

4.       Jatinder jain son Kundan Lal Jain Executive  Member of SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society Limited, resident of #12/482, Shekhupura Basti Backside OBC Bank, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

5.       Mohd. Mughni Usmani son of Mohd. Zaheer Hassan Usmani, Executive Member of SMD Premier Thrift & Credit Co- Operative Society Limited resident of # B-16/65 Delhi Gate,  Near Old Post Office, Malerkotla, District Sangrur ( Deleted).                                                                                                                                                           ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :         Shri Vinay Jindal Advocate                       

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1,2&4               :   Exparte                         

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY No.3                  :   Shri Harpreet Singh, Advocate                         

 

 

                   

                            

Sarita Garg,   Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                            

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Ram Dass, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the assurance of the OPs no.3 to5, he invested an amount of Rs.50000/- with OPs  no. 3 to 5 on 25.05.2015 and OPs had to repay an amount of Rs.55500/-  after one year as maturity amount on 24.05.2016. After expiry of one year the complainant deposited original bond certificate alongwith all other requisite documents with OPs and fulfill all the formalities.   The  officials of the OPs transferred  the amount of Rs.55500/- in the account of complainant and complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.25000/- and OPs paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- and a total  sum of Rs.20,000/- is outstanding towards the OPs.  Thereafter the complainant number of times requested the OPs  to pay the remaining  amount but OPs did not accede the request of the complainant   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the remaining  amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             None has appeared for OPs no.1 and 2  despite service  and as such OPs no.1 and 2  were proceeded exparte. Earlier Shri Neeraj Kalra, Advocate had appeared for OP no.4 but later on none had appeared for Op no.4 and as such Op no.4 was also proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint, that the dispute is touching the business of society and there is a dispute among the member and executive members of the society, that the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it is stated that the OP has no knowledge  regarding the deposit of the amount of the complainant. The OP has no record as such is not in a position to reply regarding the alleged payment.  It is specifically denied that the complainant met with OP no.3 who assured to refund the amount.  

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand OP no.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             From the perusal of the documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the OPs in the shape of FDR/bond for the period from 25.05.2015 to 24.05.2016, which was repayable along with interest on 24.05.2016 to the tune of Rs.55500/- on maturity, as is evident from the copy of bond certificate on record as Ex.C-2,  but the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs had paid only an amount of Rs.35000/- and the remaining amount  has not been paid despite the fact the expiry date of 24.05.2016 has already elapsed and the complainant approached the Ops so many times for the payment.  Ex.C-1 is the sworn affidavit of the complainant to support her contention in the complaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no.3 has contended vehemently that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself is a society member and is not a consumer of the OP No.3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OP No.3 that the matter in question is covered under the Punjab Cooperative Society Act, 1961 and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts and as such it is stated that this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and to support such a contention the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Secretary, Thirurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha (dead) 2004 AIR (SC) 448.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that if the cooperative society fails to refund deposited amount on maturity to its members, then it has been held that the provisions of the law are of no bar to consumer jurisdiction. This view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Kalawati and others versus United vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. 2002(1) CPJ 71(NC). As such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has the jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant the remaining  amount of Rs.20000/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 24.05.2016 till realization in full. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation and further Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.       

                        Announced

                        August 10,2018

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)                 ( Sarita Garg)

        Member                           Presiding Member