Punjab

Sangrur

CC/47/2018

Sima Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Jatinder Verma

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 47

Instituted on:   02.02.2018

                                                                        Decided on:     09.07.2018

 

Sima Rani D/o Ram Singh R/O #E-15/477, Street NO.3, Indra Basti, Sangrur now wife of Krishan Kumar R/O 940/27, Gali No.11, Madanpuri, Near S.D. Public School, Gurgaon-122001.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     SMD Premier Thrift and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. through its Branch Manager, H.O. Outside Sunami Gate, above IDBI Bank, Sangrur now shifted  C/O SMD Home Décor, Regd. SCO No.10, Court Road, Back side Post Office, Sangrur.

2.     Jatinder Jain Executive Member, SMD Premier Thrift and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. H.O. Outside Sunami Gate, above IDBI Bank, Sangrur now shifted C/O SMD Home Décor Regd. SCO No.10, Court Road, Back side Post Office, Sangrur.

3.     Sandeep Jindal, Executive Member, SMD Premier Thrift and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. H.O. Outside Sunami Gate, above IDBI Bank, Sangrur now shifted C/O SMD Home Décor Regd. SCO No.10, Court Road, Back side Post Office, Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Jatinder Verma, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3                  :             Shri Harpreet Singh,Adv.          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1&2    :             Exparte.

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   Sarita Garg, Member

          ORDER:   

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Smt. Sima Devi, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of Ops, the complainant availed the services of the Ops by depositing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the shape of FDR/bond certificate with the Ops for the period of three years i.e. from 4.1.2014 to 3.1.2017 and the Ops issued certificate bearing number 0023 & registration number SMDP00028 dated 6.1.2014 and on maturity i.e. on 3.1.2017, the Ops were bound to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,51,232/-.  Further case of the complainant is that though she deposited the original FDR/bond certificate with the Ops on 27.3.2017 under proper receipt, but the Ops failed to pay back to the complainant the maturity amount i.e. Rs.3,51,232/-  despite repeated visits. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.3,51,232/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of maturity and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             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 form, 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 management of the society, that the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             Record shows that the Ops number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 copy bond certificate  and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3  has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/7 documents and affidavit 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.2,50,000/- with the OPs in the shape of FDR/bond for the period from 4.1.2014 to 3.1.2017, which was repayable along with interest on 3.1.2017 to the tune of Rs.3,51,232/- 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 said amount has not been paid despite the fact the expiry date of 3.1.2017 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 Ops has contended vehemently that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself is a society member and is not a consumer of the Ops. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the matter in question is covered under Sections 55,56 and 82 of 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 an amount of Rs.3,51,232/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 3.1.2017 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.     

Pronounced.

 

                July 9, 2018.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                               

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member