DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 29.2.2016
Decided on: 24.01.2018
Megh Raj, Retired Secretary, The Kalwanu Multiple Cooperative Society Ltd., Kalwanu, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The Kalwanu Multiple Cooperative Society Ltd., Kalwanu, District Patiala through its President.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Arun Bansal,Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.S.S.Bhullar, Advocate, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Megh Raj, complainant 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:-
- To release the amount of Rs.4,41,100/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the due date till realization; pay
- To pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he retired as Secretary on 31.5.2015 from the office of the OP and the amount of gratuity, security was released to him by the OP as per the rules. It is stated that for the sake of social security in the old age and for the benefit of himself in future, the complainant deposited Rs.8,66,500/- in the bank account of the OP on 8.6.2015 with the clear understanding that the said amount would be released as and when demanded by the complainant. On his repeated requests some amount was released by the OP but an amount of Rs.4,41,100/- is still lying with it. He time and again requested the OP for releasing the said amount but the OP did not pay heed to his request and every time put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Finding no alternative, he got served a legal notice dated 8.2.2016 upon the OP for releasing the said amount alongwith interest but to no effect. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not covered under the definition of Consumer and the relation of Master and Servant came to an end. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant retired on 31.5.2015. It is denied that any amount of gratuity etc. was released to the complainant at the time of his retirement rather he fraudulently managed to withdraw the amount of Rs.8.66,500/- from the account of the Society as his retiral benefits, prior to his retirement, which was got deposited from the complainant by intervention of the police department. It is stated that the amount in dispute is part of that amount . No undertaking/understanding as alleged for return of this amount was never settled with the complainant. Nothing is payable to the complainant as claimed by him. It is stated that the OP’s society is a Corporate body and is governed by the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act,1961. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OP-A affidavit of Sh.Nahar Singh,Committee Member of the OP and closed the evidence of the OP.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant for getting refund of an amount of Rs.4,41,100/- alongwith interest deposited by him with the OP. The case of the complainant is that he had received the retirement benefits amounting to Rs.8,66,500/-by way of two cheques , few days before his retirement and he deposited the said amount with the OP. In support of his contention that he had received the retirement benefits from the OP society, of which he was the secretary, he has placed on record a copy of balance sheet , copy of account and copy of day book,Exs.C1 to C3. On the other hand the OP society has denied the deposit of any amount by the complainant with it and has alleged that the complainant had managed to withdraw Rs.8,66,500/-from the account of the society, prior to his retirement and on pressure from the police and the society, he deposited back the said amount with the society. The exact amount of retirement benefits calculated thereafter, was paid to the complainant and there is nothing due to the complainant.
It may be stated here that the copy of the balance sheet and the copy of other accounts placed on record by the complainant are not the copies of audited accounts, which is mandatory in the case of Cooperative Societies. No other cogent evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove his case. On the basis of the documents referred above, it can not concluded that the complainant had deposited an amount Rs.8,66,500/- with the OP. In the reply given by the complainant in the shape of an affidavit to the question put by the OP, he has not answered the question No.4, as to whether he had any saving bank account or cheque book issued by the OP society. It is not out of place to mention here that the complainant has neither placed on record any receipt regarding the OP having received the deposit nor has placed on the copies of the cheques through which the alleged deposits were made nor has placed the copy of his bank account statement showing the encashment of the cheques. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that he had deposited the alleged amount with the society as interest bearing deposits. As such, we do not find any merit in the complaint filed by the complainant. Consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 24.01.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
