Haryana

Ambala

CC/325/2013

RITIKA GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AMBALA DURGA CO-OPERATIVE - Opp.Party(s)

NAVNEET GUPTA

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                       Complaint Case No. :   325 of 2008/2013

                                                                       Date of Institution     :  3.9.2008/6.3.2013

           Date of Decision       :  27.07.2016

Ritika Goel D/o Shri Vijay Goel, R/o H.No.202, Phase-I, GMT Road, Engineer Enclave,  Dehradun.

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                          ……Complainant.

                                                                                                        Versus

 

1.         The Ambala Durga Co-operative Non-Agri. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Ambala City through its authorized person Shri Parmod Singh Rana son of Shri M.S. Rana R/o Kothi No.170, Sector-9, U.E. Ambala City.

 

2.         Santosh Rana, President, The Ambala Durga Co-operative Non-Agri. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Ambala City, R/o Kothi No.170, Sector-9, U.E. Ambala City.

 

3.         Vanita Sehgal W/o Shri Manohar Lal Sehgal, Member Executive Body, The Ambala Durga Co-operative Non-Agri. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Ambala City, R/o Kothi No.198, Sector-9, U.E. Ambala City.

 

                                                                                                ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Navneet Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. counsel for Op No.1.

                        Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Adv. counsel for OP No.3.

                        OP No.2 given up.

ORDER.

1.                     The present complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’)  has been filed by the complainant averring therein that OPs No.2 & 3 were running the aforesaid society i.e. OP No.1 and used to receive money from the public at large with the assurance to them to earn attractive rate of interest, high returns & secured investment. It has been further contended that the complainant after inspiring the assurance as well as representation of the respondents; agreed to deposit  a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of FDR vide No.2232 dated 29.10.2007 having interest @ 12% per annum.  At the time of maturity of FDR in question, OPs failed to pay the matured amounts  except Rs.8000/- on account of interest despite various visits and requests. As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs  have attributed bad & deficient services to them by not making the payments on due date which caused great mental pain & harassment to them. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint being barred by limitation as well as jurisdiction.  On merits, it has been urged that the answering Ops are ready  & willing to pay the amount of FDR but due to financial crisis of the society, they are not in a position to make the payment of FDR as there are so many persons who are defaulters and failed  to make the payment of the answering Ops as agreed at the time of advancement of loan. Anyhow on recovery of loaned amount from defaulters, answering Ops will make the payment to complainant as many cases are pending before the Arbitrator and the courts U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and thus prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                         OP No.3 tendered their reply raising preliminary objection qua non-maintainability of complaint.  On merits, it has been urged that answering OP has no concern with the affairs of the society as she had resigned long ago and thereafter she never remained as member of the executive body during the currency of issuance of alleged FDR. Thus a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs have been made.

3.                     It is pertinent to mention  here that the said complaint was accepted by our predecessors vide order dated 31.08.2010 whereby Ops were directed  jointly & severally to pay the maturity amount of FDR  in question  after deducting a sum of Rs.8000/- already paid by Ops alongwith interest & costs against which OP No.3 preferred First Appeal wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula set aside the impugned order and remitted back the case to District Forum for the fresh decision after affording proper opportunities to both the parties to lead  the evidence  but OP No.2 did not bother to appear and  thus she was given up vide order dated 16.06.2015 and Op No.1 society was ordered to be represented through authorized person Sh. Parmod Singh Rana, husband  of Op No.2 Smt. Santosh Rana.

4.                     To prove his version, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to  C-4 and closed  the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered statement  before the Forum on 14.03.2016 that the evidence already tendered on behalf of Ops No.1 & 2 on 26.07.2010 i.e. affidavit of Smt. Santosh Rana in the capacity of President of Op society (Annexure RX) be read as  evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and counsel for OP No.3 tendered  in evidence affidavit of Smt.Vanita Sehgal as Annexure R3/X alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-35 and submitted two Misc. Applications i.e. one for issuing a direction to OP No.1  to produce the cash book, ledger Book and bank account statement etc. pertaining to OP society and second application for directing the complainant to  refund Rs.50,000/- taken by him/her earlier in execution of award dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Forum in the aforesaid case to which OP No.1 & complainant replied and submitted that these Misc. Applications have been filed intentionally, only to linger on the proceedings of the case at such a belated stage which are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed  with costs.  As such, said Misc. Applications have been dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by OP No.3 to complainant vide our separate order of even date resulting into closure of evidence of Op No.3 by court order.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant & OPs and gone through the record very carefully. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had invested their huge amount in the FDR with the OPs-society and the maturity amount of the FDR was not paid to the complainant and prayed for acceptance of the complaint against the OPs. 

6.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs argued that the complaint is not maintainable  being barred as per due Provisions of Haryana Co.Op. Societies Act.  Moreover, the loanees of the society have not returned the advances taken from Op society and various litigations are pending before the Registrar Coop. Society for recovery  of loaned amount and as soon as the same will be recovered, payment will be disbursed to complainant against his mature FDR and requested for dismissal of complaint.  Counsel for OP No.3 argued that OP No.3 resigned from the OP society prior to issuance of FDR in question and there are no any signatures of OP No.3 at the FDR ( Annexure C-1) and thus she is not liable for repayment of the same.

7.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the first and foremost question arises for consideration before this Forum is that “whether this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain and decide such types of complaints?”  The counsel for the complainant has firmly stated that the complaint is maintainable and this Forum has enough jurisdiciton to entertain & decide the same. In support of his contention, the counsel for the complainant has laid emphasis on Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced as under:-

“3 Act not in derogation of any other law- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”

 

                        Section-3 is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to  and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force meaning thereby that even if any other Act provides any remedy to a litigant for redressal of his grievnace, even then he can approach the Consumer Fora, if he is a ‘Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act.  The counsel for the complainant further strenghened his version by placing reliance on case laws 2002(1) CPJ-71(NC) titled as Smt. Kalawati & others Vs United Vaish Co.operative Thrift & Credit Society Limited  and 2006(III) CPJ -390 (NC) titled as Kamal Trading Company Vs. Kolhapur Zila Shetkari Vinkari Sahkari, wherein  it has been held that Societies Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the District Forum assuming jurisdiction in the matter. So, we hold that this Forum has very much jurisdiction to decide the matter in question  involved in the present complaint.

 8.                    At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record that the FDR in question was  issued by the OP-society and maturity value of the FDR have not been paid so far.  Further the OPs never offered to make the payment of the value of the FDR alongwith interest to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint. So, non-payment of the matured FDR in question itself is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. On the other hand, perusal of documents placed on record by Op No.3 nowhere reveals that the resignation of Op no.3 was ever accepted by Managing Committee of the society rather the document ( Annexure C-4) tendered by complainant i.e. order of  Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra  dated 31.12.2012 clearly speaks that as per Bye-laws 36(22) of Society, the Governing Body/Managing Committe of the society is only competent to accept the resignation of any member of society  but ARCS, Ambala has accepted the same for which he was not entitled and the respondent No.2 i.e. Smt. Vanita Sehgal cannot escape from the liability as office bearer of the OP society.

                        In view of the above discussed facts, we allow the present complaint  and the OPs are held liable jointly and severally to comply with the following directions within a period of thrity days from the receipt of this order:-

1. To pay an amount of FDR to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-as detailed in Para No.1 of the order alongwith agreed  rate of interest as mentioned in the FDR till the date of their maturity (except Rs.8000/- already paid on account of interest to complainant) and thereafter on the matured amount i.e. (principal + interest), pay  simple interest @ 9% per annum  till their actual realisation.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

                        So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced:27.07.2016                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

              MEMBER