Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/70

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hafizabad Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kesar Singh, Adv.

29 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                     Consumer Complaint No. :  70 of 03.10.2016                                      Date of decision                    :      29.09.2017

 

Avtar Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Maan Singh, resident of Village Khanpur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. The Hafizabad Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Village Hafizabad, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its President Sh. Balbir Singh, son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Hafizabad, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

2. Badan Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of Village Lutheri, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar (Previous Secretary of the Hafizabad M/P C.A.S. Society)  

3. The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Bela, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through Branch Manager                                                                                                                                                                                                       ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Kesar Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. K.S. Rana, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

          Sh. Varinder Kumar, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

          O.P. No.3 ex-parte

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Avtar Singh through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To waive off the amount of Rs.40,000/-, which in their accounts, they are showing as outstanding against him due to forgery committed by the O.P. No.2

ii)      To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment

 

2.         In brief the case of the complainant is that he is having account No.194/B with the O.P. No.1, which is the co-operative agriculture service society, providing loan facility to its share holder members for agriculture purpose i.e. for the purchase of fertilizers, seeds and other related agriculture activities. The society, in collaboration with O.P. No.3 provide credit facility to its share holder members. He being a share holder member of the O.P. society, has been availing the credit facility through O.P. No.3. It issued a cheque book initially on 11.2.2004, bearing cheque Nos.445561 to 445580 and after completion/exhaustion of said cheque book, it issued another cheque book bearing cheque Nos.018261 to 018280. He is the owner of four acre of agriculture land, in the beginning the ‘Limit Facility’ as applicable to him was upto the extent of Rs.36000/- only and subsequently with the passage of time the ‘Limit Facility’ was enhanced from time to time and was increased, to the extent of Rs.52,000/- upto the year 2015. It is stated that when a share holder member of the society makes payment of the previous “credit” amount and clear his account with the bank, thereafter, the next “credit facility” is advanced to the said member. He started doing transaction with the society w.e.f. 12.2.2004 onwards and did the last transaction with the society was done on 6.1.2015. He has been receiving the payment, on presentation of the cheque through the secretary of the society i.e. O.P. No.2 and the entries of the advances/credits are being made by the O.P. No.2 in the passbook of the bank/society. From the entries, it is evident that the new payment has been made to the share holder members of the society on the payment of the previous amount. On 16.12.2013, he issued a cheque No.018261 dated 16.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and as usual in routine he gave the said cheque to O.P. No.2, for presentation before the bank, after keeping the counter file of the said cheque with him. At the time of issuance of the said cheque, when he started to write the amount of Rs.50,000/- then O.P. No.2 restrained him and told not to write the amount in ‘words’ with saying that he might commit some mistake while writing the amount in words. As such, he left blank the space meant for writing the amount in words. The said cheque was presented by the O.P. No.2 to O.P. No.3 and after encashment, O.P. No.2 had given him Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.873/- on 11.9.2014, again deposited Rs.672/- and subsequently on 27.6.2014, he deposited Rs.48,505/- and account of the complainant was cleared by the O.P. No.2/secretary of the society and had made necessary entries in the passbook. After few months, when he went to the society to make the payment of the outstanding amount, which he received on 6.1.2015 vide cheque No.018263, then the new secretary of the society namely Sh. Kulwant Singh, son of Sh. Gurmit Singh, informed him that Rs.90,000/- were outstanding against him for the previous transaction. He got shocked to know about the same. It is further stated that he thereafter obtained the statement of account from the O.P. No.3 and came to know that an amount of Rs.90,000/-  has been shown to be paid to him instead of Rs.50,000/ on 16.12.2013 vide cheque No.018261. He inquired about the same from O.P. No.3. It told him that amount of Rs.90,000/- was given to the secretary of the society on receipt of the said cheque. He requested the O.P. No.3 to show him that original cheque and after seeing the said cheque, he found that the O.P. No.2 fraudulently, changed the amount from Rs.50,000/ to Rs.90,000/- He requested the O.Ps to correct the statement/record lying with them pertaining to cheque No.018261 dated 16.12.2013, but the O.Ps. refused to do so. Thereafter, he came to know that FIR No.115 dated 30.10.2015 under section 409, 420 IPC at PS Chamkaur Sahib has been lodged against the O.P. No.2. for cheating, forgery, fabrication and other wrongs committed by him, with so many share holder members of the society, in the same way as has been committed against him by the O.P. No.2.  He has not spared even the dead persons and after registration of the FIR, he was jailed. He requested the O.Ps. to waive off the amount of Rs.40,000/- which has been shown outstanding against him. But the O.Ps. paid no heed to his request. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as per the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and rules framed there under. In case of any dispute between the parties, same should have been referred to arbitrator under section 55 and 56 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. If the complainant has any dispute with the O.ps. then he could have filed a complaint  under section 55 and 56 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act because as per section 82 of the said act the jurisdiction of any other courts are barred. It is stated that the complainant being the member of the society had taken agriculture loan from it and but had not returned the said amount. He has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps., so that society should not initiate the recovery proceedings against him. On merits, it is stated that it is correct that complainant is a member of the O.P. society and has been availing loan facility through cheques. But it is not mandatory to present the cheque to the secretary for availing the cash. The member of the society may encash the cheque by presenting the same before the bank. The entry regarding issuance of cash to the member is to be made by the bank officials and the secretary of the society makes the entries in the passbook for the fertilizers and seeds etc. The member himself fill the cheque and present before the bank for encashment and the bank officials after verifying the signatures on the cheque, disburse the amount to the account holder only. It is stated that an amount of Rs.90,000/- as principle is outstanding against the complainant and the same has to be paid by him along with interest till the date, he did not return the said amount. It is denied that Rs.90,000/- was given to the complainant by the then secretary of the society. All the entries made in the record are correct and nobody can manipulate with the record. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof with direction to the complainant to deposit total amount of Rs.90,000/- along with interest.

4.       The O.P. No.2 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint against the answering O.P. is not maintainable in the eyes of law; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it is stated that no cheque has been given by the complainant to him. He has done all the entries in the passbook according to the society rules. He has no knowledge regarding the issuance of cheque by the complainant and he never restrained him to fill up the cheque. He never received any blank cheque from the complainant as alleged by him. On 6.1.2015, he was not the secretary of the society and the complainant has unnecessarily dragged him into unwanted litigation, with the motive to harass and humiliate him. The complainant has not paid any amount and is defaulter of the society. Complainant has leveled false allegations against him and he has reserved his right to initiate proceedings against him for leveling false allegations. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

5.       On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf O.P. No.3, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2016.

6.       On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to C6 and closed the closed the evidence. Sh. Balbir Singh, President of Hafizabad Cooperative Multipurpose Agriculture Services Society Limited has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/D and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Badan Singh, Ex. Secretary of Hafizabad Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Society Limited Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.

7.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.       The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the year 2013, the maximum credit limit was of Rs.51,800/- and in order to withdraw Rs.50,000/- from the bank, he handed over a cheque No.018261 dated 16.12.2013, to the O.P. No.2. but he by tempering the said cheque had withdrawn  Rs.90,000/- but had made entry in the passbook of Rs.50,000/- only. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the copy of the passbook containing of five pages Ex.C2. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has vehemently argued that in the year 2013, the maximum credit limit was of Rs.1,42,870/- and not of Rs.51,800/- as alleged by the complainant and has produced the original Maximum Credit Limit register. After retaining the photocopy, marked as “A” the same was returned to the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1. He has further argued that the complainant himself has withdrawn Rs.90,000/- vide cheque No. 018261 dated 16.12.2013, but he instead of paying the said loan amount had falsely filed the present complaint against it and same may kindly be dismissed with cost. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that complainant himself has withdrawn Rs.90,000/- from the bank vide cheque No.018261 dated 16.12.2013, and entry of the said transaction was made in the ledger book and the copy of the same has been placed on record as Ex.C3/OP1/B. The complainant has alleged that O.P No. 2 has converted the amount of Rs.50,000/- into Rs.90,000/- but has not placed on record the impugned cheque to prove the said fact. Complainant has alleged that forgery has been committed by the O.P. No.2 against him. To prove the same, voluminous evidence is required and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as the proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost being not maintainable.

9.           On perusal of copy of passbook, EX.C2, it has been observed that on its first page, there is over writing on the account number and on the rest of each of the page different account number has been mentioned. From the copy of Maximum Credit Limit Register, mark “A”, it is evident that the maximum credit limit of Rs.,142,870/- was sanctioned to the complainant in the year 2013. From the copy of ledger EX.C3/OP1/B, it is apparent that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was debited in the account of the complainant on 16.12.2013. It may be stated that on the basis of the documents referred to above, and in the absence of the cheque No.018261dated 16.12.2013, it is difficult to ascertain that the cheque No.018261 dated 16.12.2013 was actually tampered or not. The complainant has alleged that forgery has been committed by the O.P. No.2. Elaborate evidence is required to prove the same, which can only be adduced in Civil Court and it will not be possible for this Forum to adjudicate the matter in just and proper manner as the proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint, being not maintainable. The complainant would be however, free to avail any other remedy available to him under the law.

10.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties      forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be     indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated .29.09.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER