STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Appeal No.220 of 2010) Date of Institution: 09.06.2010 Date of Decision : 11.11.2010 1. The Chandigarh SBOP Employees Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., House No.163, Gali No.6, Shanti Nagar, Manimajra, Chandigarh through its Secretary Sh. Harish Kumar Singla. 2. Sh. Harish Kumar Singla, Secretary, The Chandigarh SBOP Employees Cooperative U.S.E. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., resident of House No.51, Sector 10, Panchkula. ……Appellants V e r s u sSh. Surinder Singh, National Athletic Coach SAI, son of Late Capt. Sital Singh, resident of House No.2312, Sector 35-, Chandigarh. ....Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This is OP’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) against the order dated 31.7.2000, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), directing the OPs to refund the amount of fixed deposit receipt with agreed rate of interest i.e. 10% per annum up to the date of payment along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of arguments that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as fixed deposit with the OPs/appellants on 25.2.2007 for 12 months and they were liable to pay interest @10% per annum. In this respect, a receipt (Annexure C-1) was issued. The maturity amount of the fixed deposit was Rs.1,48,500/-. It is also admitted that the said amount has not been refunded to the complainant so far. The complainant issued a notice (Annexure C-2) dated 1.4.2009 to pay the amount and when the same was not paid, he filed the present complaint. 3. A notice was issued to the OPs/appellants. It was duly served but none appeared for the OPs and the appellants were proceeded against exparte. 4. An opportunity was given to the complainant/respondent to produce evidence. 5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the record, the complaint was allowed exparte in terms as mentioned in the opening para of the order vide impugned order dated 31.7.2009, which has been challenged by the OPs through this appeal. 6. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on 9.6.2010 challenging the order dated 31.7.2009. The contention of the complainant is that the Secretary of the OP Society was transferred to Patlikul from Chandigarh in May 2008 and was not aware of the complaint filed against the Society and as soon as he received information of the impugned order, he immediately contacted his counsel and filed the present appeal. He, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal. The appellants also attached an affidavit in support of this contention. 7. The request for condonation was opposed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Secretary of the appellants – Society was transferred to Patlikul in May 2008. He, however, did not produce any such order to prove about his transfer nor produced any evidence to suggest if he took over charge at the said place i.e. Patlikul. It is not disputed that the office of the OPs/appellants remained at Manimajra within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Chandigarh. No evidence has been produced from the said office to suggest that they did not receive the copy of the impugned order. The appellants have not mentioned in the application, on which date, they got the information about the impugned order and how they calculated the delay of 160 days in filing the present appeal. It is, therefore, all vague where there is no specific allegation of the date of receiving the information nor any justification for delay. We, therefore, do not find any grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application moved by the appellants for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed with costs. 10. On merits also, the appellants have no cause. The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the amount received from the investors was further lent to the members of the Society and others who failed to pay back the same and therefore, proceedings were initiated against them due to which the amount received from the complainant could not be paid by them in time. It is also argued that there were several complaints and applications for refund of the amount and the account of the complainant in State Bank of India was attached by the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat and the operation of the Account was stayed. It is admitted that now the said stay order has been vacated and the account has been released. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that they are to pay back the amount to several other persons also and therefore, a seniority list may kindly be allowed to be prepared to refund the amount to all those in order of seniority. We do not find any merit in this argument. When the amount was received by the appellants from the complainant, there was no such agreement with him that the amount would be refunded to him in order of any such seniority as is desired to be made by the complainant now. In fact, the OPs are liable to refund the amount promptly to all those who come forward seeking the refund thereof. 12. The deposit of the amount by the complainant is duly proved through receipt (Annexure C-1) and has been admitted by the appellants. It is also admitted that the amount has not been paid back so far. Even through this appeal, the OPs have not tried to avoid their liability. The OPs/appellants are, therefore, liable to refund the amount along with interest as agreed between the parties. An objection was taken through Para No.8 of the Grounds of Appeal that as per Section 82 the Punjab Cooperative Society Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), no Civil or Revenue Court has jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising between members and the Society. A reference was also made to Sections 55 and 56 of the said Act. We are, however, of the opinion that Sections 55 and 56 of the Act ibid do not debar a Consumer Fora to entertain the complaint even if the complainant is member of the same Society. Similarly, Section 82 debars the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court but not of the Consumer Fora. Needless to mention that the District Forum is neither a Civil nor a Revenue Court and therefore, Section 82 of the Act ibid has no application to these proceedings. In view of Section 3 of the C. P. Act, the remedy before the Consumer Fora has been provided in addition to any other remedy available to the complainant to recover the amount. 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 14. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 11th November 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION(Appeal No.220 of 2010) Argued by: Sh. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Dated the 11th day of November, 2010. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
