ORDER
09/09/2010
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant opened two saving deposit accounts bearing no. 3036LF6D1325 and 2339LF601316 in the office of the opposite party namely “Social and Environment Development Organisation ( in short SEDO) at Wangjing Bazar Thoubal District, Manipur under Regd. No. 10/SR/TBL/2002-2001 and out of the total amounts in the said two accounts the sum of Rs. 145,400/- is remained as balance under account No. 2339 and the sum of Rs. 1,93,900/- is remained as balance under account no. 3036.
It has been alleged that the O.P is a service provider rendering service of keeping safe custody of others money and the complainant is a consumer. It has been alleged that the O.P is the Secretary of “SEDO and the said SEDO is running the inter alia business of Banker for the last 10 (ten) years. It has also been alleged that on 18-01-2008 the complainant went to the aforesaid Banker Office (SEDO) for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from each of his account nos. 2339 and 3036. But surprisingly the complainant’s withdrawal form was dishonoured by the opposite party stating to the complainant that there is tremendous financial problem of SEDO and as such his withdrawal form could not be accepted on that day and informed the complainant to come to the office after 1½ years. Thereafter the complainant requested the O.P many times for allowing him to withdraw the aforesaid amount on different dates but no fruitful result come out except to postpone the date of withdrawal of the said amount one after another till the last part of 2009. It has been alleged that the O.P started to conceal himself so as to avoid meeting with the complainant. It has also been alleged that two legal notices dated 26-03-2010 were sent through his advocate by Regd. Post by instructing the O.P to pay the whole deposit amount as remained in his account within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice. It has also been alleged that the opposite party turned to a deaf ear to the respect refusing the delivery of the same. Hence the present case for allowing the complainant to withdraw his lawful amount from his two accounts and for an order to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- any other order as deems it file.
The O.P has filed his written version in the case denying the statements made in the complaint except to admit that he is secretary of the Banking Organisation (SEDO) and the complainant is the account holder in the O.P.S office. It has been alleged in his written version that the complainant petition of the complainant is wrong/incorrect denying that the complainant never submitted his withdrawal form in the office of SEDO at any point of time and also that he never received any legal notice through post office. It has also been alleged that the present complaint case has filed before this Forum wrongly and without jurisdiction according to the Rules and Regulations of SEDO issued by the Registrar of societies, Thoubal District as it violates Rule no. 24 sub rule VI and rule 38 of the same. It has also been alleged that the present complaint case is barred by Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the pecuniary reliefs of the complainant in his complaint case is more than one lakh. Hence the present case deserves to be rejected with compensatory cost.
Heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant, Shri kh. Bheigya Singh and Md. Liaquat Ali, Counsel of the O.P and also perused and considered the material/documents on record.
At the outset, this Forum has to discuss three issues:-
i) Whether this Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain the case of the complainant under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 or not?
ii) Whether the case of the complainant is barred under rule 24 sub rule VI and rule 38 under the rules and regulations of SEDO or not?
iii) whether the case of the complainant is within the scope of Sec. 19 of Manipur Societies Registrations Act 1989?
As regards the issue no.1 in respect of under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Ld. Counsel of the opposite party has no further objection as the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is up to Rs. 20,00000/- ( Rupees twenty lakhs) only and as such the question of discussing section II of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 does not arise.
As regards the issue no II and III, in respect of rule no. 24 and sub-rule VI and rule no. 38 of the Rules and Regulations of SEDO and Section 19 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989 the counsel of the O.P submits that the present case of the complainant should be filed/addressed to the President of SEDO only as per its rules and regulations. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel of the complainant submits the rule no. 24 sub rule VI and rule 38 of the rules and regulations of SEDO cannot be applied as the same shall overrule by Section 19 of the Manipur Societies Registrations Act 1989. The Ld. Counsel of the complainant further submits that “Every society registered under Societies Registrations Act 1989 may hue and may be hued in the name of the President, Secretary or any office bearer authorised by the Registrar in this behalf and as such this section shall overrule the said rule no. 24 sub rule VI and rule 38 of the Rules and Regulations of SEDO as this organisation (SEDO) is registered under Manipur societies Registration Act 1989. The Ld. Counsel produced the relevant portion of the Act for satisfaction of this Forum.
The Ld. Counsel of the O.P strongly submits that under the rules and regulations of SEDO, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case of the complainant. The Ld. Counsel of the O.P also produced the relevant portions of rule no. 24 sub-rule VI and rule 38 of the Rules and Regulations of SEDO before this Forum. He further submits that consumer/customer of SEDO shall be governed by its Rules and Regulations only and not under Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989. The Ld. Counsel of the O.P also further submits that the O.P is not a service provider and the complainant is not a consumer in the nature of the present case and as such the same is liable to be rejected in the interest of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and discussing the material/documents on record and also the submissions of both the Ld. Counsel of the complainant and O.P. this Forum has opined that the complainant has jurisdiction to file the present case as the same is filed within the scope of Sec. 19 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and that this section overrule rule no. 24 sub rule VI and rule no. 38 of the Rules and Regulations of SEDO as the same is registered under Manipur Societies Registration Act 1989.
This forum further hold that in the present case “consumer is defined in sec.2(I)(d) of the Consumer protection Act 1086 and “service” is defined in sec. 2(I)(o) of the said Act. On minute reading this definitions, the complainant is very much a consumer. The opposite party is rendering the service of keeping in safe custody of other’s money giving interest of the deposited amount etc. And in the meantime the O.P gets service charges uses/invests the deposited amounts etc. like any other Banker in such trade. As the complainant deposit his money, hires/avails the banking service of the O.P who gets his monetary benefits mentioned above by way of consideration. In this connection, this Forum has also perused the judgement and order dated 23-08-2008 passed by the Manipur state Commission in First Appeal Case no. 11 of 2008 as reference.
From the above reasons the present case is a Consumer Dispute and maintainable. On the facts and circumstances laid above, the O.P’s Commission and Omission clearly amounts not only to deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice of the most deplorable kind. So this Forum hereby order and direct as under:-
a) The O.P is to allow the complainant to withdraw his money (any amount due) from his saving Accounts.
b) The O.P is to pay the sum of Rs. 8,000/- (eight thousand) only by way of compensation for causing mental agony, inconvenience, unfair trade practice etc. and also further the sum of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) only as cost of litigation in total Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand).
c) The above directions are to be complied with within 4 (four) weeks from the date of passing this order and the payment of compensation and cost of litigation shall be made positively through this Forum within the above mentioned period.
The complaint is allowed to the extent indicated above.
