Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 163.
Instituted on : 15.03.2017.
Decided on : 12.12.2018.
Rajinder Gulati 56 years 7988965235 s/o Sh. Madan Gopal r/o village Patwapur now r/o H.No.818 Quilla Mohalla Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Maharaja Aggarsain Govt. & Semi Govt. Employees Co-op. Urban(S.E) Society Ltd., through its President Sh.B.K.Gupta Retd. SDO, r/o G.R.Memorial Play School, near old PNB Branch, Bara Bazar Chowk, Rohtak.
- Ashu Gupta s/o Sh. B.K.Gupta, Secretary The Maharaja Aggarsain Govt. & Semi Govt. Employees Co-op. Urban(S&E) Society Ltd., r/o G.R.Memorial Play School, near old PNB Branch, Bara Bazar Chowk, Rohtak.
- The Assistant Registrar Coop. Societies. Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Neeraj Sikka, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.K.Goyal Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh.Neeraj Kumar Inspector alongwith Sh. Sunil Kumar
ADA for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant opened special saving bank account no.82 with the opposite party No.1 and the amount was payable to the complainant alongwith interest @ 11% P.A. That account was opened on 20.08.2004 by depositing Rs.15000/- and after that the complainant started depositing the amount in the said account. That there is entry of an amount of Rs.46955/- as on 31.03.2006 but after that the opposite party has not made any entry in the pass book. That complainant approached the opposite party No.1 & 2 many times and requested them to pay the amount lying deposited in the said account alongwith interest but the opposite parties are avoiding the payment on one pretext or the other. That complainants have came to know that the opposite party No.1 & 2 have closed their office. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the amount lying deposited in the account of complainants alongwith upto date interest, compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that complainant Bhupinder Kumar Gulati relative of complainant had opened 18-20 accounts with the society and he has directly and indirectly involved in opening the aforesaid account i.e. MIS, Saving, fixed deposit account with the society. That Bhupinder Kumar approached the society on 06.10.2008 to issue duplicate pass book of all his accounts No.67 to 71, 77 to 79, 80 to 84 and 92 to 96 as the pass book has been lost. So the society issued duplicate pass books of all the said accounts and he had withdrawn the amount of alleged pass books. That complainant also withdrawn the amount of his account no.82 amounting to Rs.59278/- on 30.09.2009 from the society on the basis of duplicate pass book. Nothing is due now as the account of the complainant was closed on 30.09.2009. That the complainant has filed false complaint against the society. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the matter is between plaintiff and society. Hence opposite party no.3 is no desirous to defend the same. That no interest of the opposite party no.3 is involved in this case. However, it is also submitted that The Maharaja Aggarsain Govt. & Semi Govt. Employees Co-op. Urban (SE)Society Ltd. Rohtak is registered by ARCS Rohtak vide Registration No.1298(TC) dated 02.12.1998. There is no need to defend this case.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R26 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the respondents, they have submitted in para no.1 of their written statement that copy of duplicate pass book, cash book, ledger, Audit report and voucher shall be produced before the Court at the time of evidence. But the complainants with ill motive have filed this false case against the society which is highly time barred. OP No.1 & 2 in their additional evidence has tendered “List of Account statement of Saving Account holders of the society as on 31.03.2010 which are Ex.R19 to Ex.R26. A bare perusal of the alleged documents itself shows that the same are not having the seal of the society and it only bears the initials. Hence the same are not relevant. Moreover, the alleged documents are only filed at the time of arguments and the same should have been mentioned in the written statement.
8. Regarding the objection taken by the opposite party about limitation, reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2015(3)CLT508 NC titled as Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd. Vs. Kenguva Mohana Rao and Ors. and 2015(4)CLT324(NC) titled as Assistant commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Vs. Rajendra Krishan Vyas whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Provident Fund-Limitation-Delay in filing complaint of 18 years. The amount in question relates to the provident fund dues of the complainant and he was well within his rights to be provided the said amount by the authorities concerned-Even if the complainant did not come forward to claim the said amount for a considerable period of time it does not imply by any stretch of imagination that the concerned authorities have acquired the right to forfeit the said amount. There is a continuing cause of action involved in the present complaint and the claim cannot be time-barred”. The aforesaid law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and as such objection taken by the opposite party regarding limitation is turned down.
9. It is also observed that the audit of the Maharaja Aggarsain Society was done by the Govt. Auditor and he found so many discrepancies in the record of the society. The whole detail has been mentioned in Ex.C2 itself. The perusal of audit report itself shows that complainant Rajinder has not received any amount against the saving account no.82. Moreover we have also perused the page no.29 of the audit report in which the saving amount is mentioned as Rs.1073354/- for the financial year 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and cash in hand is mentioned as Rs.286972/- as on dated 31.03.2010. The respondents have not mentioned anywhere that from where they received the amount and paid to the complainant. Whereas in the next year also as per the balance sheet which is on the page no.38 of the report itself shows that the saving account is as it is i.e. Rs.1073354/- and there is no change in this head. Moreover the perusal of the balance sheet/profit and loss account for the year 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 itself shows that the saving amount is Rs.1073354/-. The same figure is mentioned for the last three years. As per the record, no payment has been made to the complainant and it has not been mentioned anywhere that complainant has received an amount of Rs.59278/-. As per the respondents, they have paid an amount of Rs.59278/- to the complainant on dated 30.09.2009 but this amount has not been mentioned anywhere in the audit report issued by the auditor. Moreover this amount has not been deducted in the account statement for the financial year 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. Hence the OPs have failed to prove that the alleged amount has been paid to the complainant. As such OPs are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
10. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.59278/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand two hundred seventy eight only) alongwith interest @ 9.% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.03.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.12.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
