DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 104 of 01-03-2011

Decided on : 29-07-2011

Pritam Singh S/o Puran Singh, aged about 75 years R/o Village Nehianwala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

The Bhatinda Primary Co-op. Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Bathinda, through its Branch Manager

..... Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Hargurjit Singh, counsel for opposite party.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the year 2000, the complainant applied for loan of Rs. 40,000/- with the opposite party for tubewell. On the demand of the opposite party, the complainant offered mortgage of his land. The officials of the opposite party got the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers, printed forms, stamp papers and also got mortgaged his agriculture land measuring 4 kanals. The opposite party provided him loan of Rs. 40,000/- after getting deposited margin money from him, vide loan account No. 17/64. The complainant repaid some of the loan installments, but due to various unavoidable circumstances, he could not deposit the entire loan amount. The complainant alleged that with the passage of time, loan amount due against the complainant became barred by limitation. In the year 2008, government floated a scheme known as 'Agricultural Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008' for the agriculturists/farmers to waive the loan amount, interest thereon and/or penal interest due against small/marginal farmers and to give 25% debt relief to 'other farmers'. The government has published this scheme at large through various sources of media and issued the instructions to all the banks to waive the remaining outstanding loan amount of the agriculturalists. Accordingly, the complainant remained under the impression that his entire loan amount has been cleared and nothing remains due against him. In the month of December, 2010, the complainant contracted the opposite party for the issuance of No Due Certificate and also to get his land redeemed/released from mortgage and the opposite party assured him that No Due Certificate would be issued within a short period, but no such certificate was issued to him. In the month of January, 2011, the complainant received notice No. 515/P.A.D.B. Dated 1-1-2011 whereby the opposite party raised a demand of Rs. 22,060/- (on account of principal amount + Rs. 13,894/- on account of interest + 14% future interest and 2% penal interest failing which threatened to dispose off the property of the complainant. On receipt of notice, the complainant approached the opposite party and demanded his statement account with complete details and also the instructions/circulars regarding waiving scheme etc., but they did not listen and rather threatened to effect the recovery by coercive method. The complainant alleged that the opposite party has adopted pick and choose method to charge interest and to waive the loan amount to their own persons and has not considered him to be eligible for the lower rate of interest and to get the benefit of waiving of loan amount. Hence he has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the impugned notice; issue No Due Certificate ; give benefit of waiver scheme; release his land from mortgage and pay him compensation and cost.

2. The opposite party filed written statement and took legal objection that complaint is not maintainable before this forum. On merits, it has been pleaded that complainant has availed two loans in the year 1998 i.e. loan of Rs. 15,000/- on 02-07-1998 and loan of Rs. 25,000/- on 13-07-1998. The complainant has mortgaged his agricultural land in favour of the opposite party as an additional and collateral security. The complainant has been irregular in payment of the installments paid by the complainant and after adjustment of the installments paid by the complainant, a huge amount is due against him. As per the Debt Relief Scheme introduced by the Central Government, debt relief was given to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 55,940/- i.e. Rs. 15,940/- in interest account and Rs. 40,000/- towards principal account on dated 28-06-2008. Even after the adjustment of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 39,042/- i.e. Rs. 22,060/- towards principal amount and Rs. 16,982/- towards interest upto 31-03-2011 is due against the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the said amount and in case of failure, the opposite party is entitled to recover the same from his person and properties including the agricultural land mortgaged by him. The opposite party has further pleaded that a notice No. 515 dated 01-01-2011 as per Punjab Co-op. Societies Act, 1961 and Punjab Agri. Dev. Bank Act, 1957 raising the demand of Rs. 22,060/- has been issued to the complainant but now a sum of Rs. 39,042/- is due against the complainant and without the payment of the said amount with up-to-date interest, the opposite party cannot issue the No Due Certificate to him.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The complainant availed two loans from the opposite party i.e. Rs. 15,000/- on 2-7-1998 and Rs,. 25,000/- on 13-07-1998 for tubewell as is evident from account statement Ex. R-2 and Loan file Ex. R-3 of the complainant. For this, he mortgaged his agricultural land measuring 4 Kanals with the opposite party. The complainant has filed this complaint seeking benefit of waiving scheme floated by the Government in the year 2008 known as 'Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.'

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that before going into the merits of the case, the matter of jurisdiction of this Forum be decided first. He submitted that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the specific remedy is available under The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. In support of his arguments, he took support of the decision of our own State Commission in the case titled 1997(II) CPJ 481 Sampuran Singh Deol Vs. The Manager, The Doraha Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., & Ors.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complaint before this Forum is maintainable and for this he referred decision of the Hon'ble Kerala State Commission in First Appeal No. A/10/566 and of Hon'ble Orissa State Commission cited as 2001(3) CLT page 544.

8. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party which is a Co-operative Society. The working of Co-Operative Society is governed by The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Sections 55, 56 and 82 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 are reproduced hereunder :-

   “55. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises :-

   a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or

   b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society or liquidator, past or present ; or

   c) between the society or its committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or

   d) between the society and any other co-operative society between a society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of one society and the liquidator of another society ;

   such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.”

   “56. Reference of disputes to arbitration (1) The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference dispute under Section 55 :-

   (a) decide the dispute himself; or

   (b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf; or

   (c) refer it for disposal of one arbitrator;

   (2) The registrar may withdraw any reference transferred under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or referred under clause (c) of that sub-section and decide it himself or refer the same to another arbitrator for decision.

   (3) The Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this Section may, pending the decision of the dispute make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of Justice.”

   “82. Bar of jurisdiction of Court :- (1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of :-

   (a) the registration of a co-operative society or its bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;

   (b) the removal of a committee;

   (c) any dispute required under Section 55 to be referred to the Registrar; and

   (d) any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a co-operative society.

   (2) While a co-operative society is being wound up no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.

   (3) Save as provided in this Act. No order decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any court on any ground whatsoever.”

9. The Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, taking support of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 'Sanam Verma Vs. Union of India' AIR 1985, Supreme Court 194, in the case titled as Sampuran Singh Deol Vs. The Manager, The Doraha Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., and others 1997(II) CPC 627 has held that :-

   “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17/12 – Complaint – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Section 55,56 & 82 – Jurisdiction – Complainant member of opposite party co-operative society – Loan sanctioned – Not released – Complaint – Whether Consumer Forum can entertain the complaint - No”

   It has been also held that “-

   “In the present case, it is to be seen as to whether such an embargo

   exists in the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act as referred to above. There is no manner of doubt left after making reference to Section 55, 56 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act that for the matters covered under the Act, the adjudication is to be by reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator under the Act and such a decision cannot be challenged in any suit in a Civil Court or proceedings. It was also held by the Supreme Court in 'Sanam Verma V. Union of India' AIR 1985, Supreme Court 194 that FORA established under the Act has the trappings of a Civil Court and is judicial authority. The claim of a Member of Cooperative Society for the remaining amount of the loan sanctioned would obviously relate to the business of the Cooperative Society for which a specific remedy is available under the Cooperative Societies Act, further creating embargo for the other Courts to challenge the same. The FORA established under the Consumer Protection Act thus could not entertain the complaint.”

10. Hence, keeping in view above said decision of our own Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the similar matter in the case 'Sanam Verma Vs. Union of India (supra) has been referred, this Forum is of the view that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Hence, it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party, they are distinguishable on facts.

12. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to get his grievances redressed from any other competent authority/court, if so advised and permitted by law. Since complaint before this Forum is not maintainable, merits of the case are not being touched.

12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced :

29-07-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member