1. Brief facts leading to the institution of present complaint are that as per the advice & inducement of OP Nos. 1 to 2 and after verifying from the office of Ops No.3 & 4, the complainant invested his savings with OP No.1 through OP No. 2 and Ops No.1 & 2 had issued FDR No.7093 dated 14.08.2004 amounting to Rs.30,000/-, having due date of maturity as 14.08.2007 for a period of three years. It has been further averred by the complainant that OPs No.1 & 2 had assured that the aforesaid FDR shall be renewed automatically after the period of maturity till the release of payment or till the complainant withdraws the same. The OPs No.1 & 2 are legally bound to return the deposited amount alongwith interest as per law & as per the Co.OP Societies Act since OP No.1 is being managed by OP No.2 and being supervised by OPs Nos. 3 & 4. It has further been averred that the complainant had approached the OP No.4 personally and also wrote letters to him for arranging to make payment of the amount of FDR but OPs No.3 & 4 have not taken any action against the Ops. Hence, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops and thus the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in prayer clause of complaint.
2. Upon notice, Ops No.1 & 2 failed to appear despite service through registered post. As such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.10.2011. Thereafter, two applications; one for setting aside the said exparte order and the other for deleting their names from the array of Ops were moved by the Op No. 2 but both these applications, were dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2013.
The OPs No. 3 & 4 submitted their reply jointly raising preliminary objections qua dismissal of complaint being bad for misjoinder of parties. It has further been urged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 specifically debars the involvement of courts other than departmental courts. It has been denied that OP No.4 had ever assured that the complainant will get money and also denied that there is any conspiracy between the Ops. The answering Ops have no concern with the FDR and as such, there is no deficiency in service on their part. In the end, it has been prayed that complaint may be dismissed against the answering Ops as they have unnecessarily been impleaded as parties.
3. In evidence, the counsel for the Complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexures C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant whereas the representative of Ops No.3 & 4 have chosen not to tender any evidence vide statement dated 17.07.2014 recorded separately and in view of his statement the written statement filed by Ops No.3 & 4 was ordered to be read in their evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as authorized representative of Ops No. 3 & 4 and gone through the record very carefully. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the shape of FDR with the OPs-society and the maturity amount of the FDR has not been paid to the complainant and thus the Ops are deficient in service and responsible to pay the matured amount of the FDR in question and prayed for acceptance of the complaint against the OPs.
5. On the other hand, representative of Op Nos. 3 & 4 argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint as its jurisdiction is barred under the Haryana Cooperatives Societies Act. Moreover, the Ops No.3 & 4 have no concern with the FDR in question and the complainant had never verified from their office as alleged. Therefore, the question of deficiency in service on their part does not arise and complaint against them may be dismissed.
6. 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 very much maintainable and this Forum has the jurisdiction 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 are in addition to and not in derrogation 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.
7. Further, it is an admitted fact on record that the FDR in question was issued by the OP-society and we are of the view that where a company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise or giving attractive rate of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulate terms, the transaction of such nature would clearly make the depositor a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. As such, non-payment of maturity value of the FDR in question itself is a grave deficiency in service on the part of Ops Nos. 1 & 2. Besides it, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on a similar case law rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a bunch of Revision Petitions bearing No’s. 3733-41 of 2013 tilted as M.L. Sehgal Vs. Shalu Chandna & Ors. wherein it has been observed that the President, Vice President & Members of the Co-op. Society are jointly & severally liable to make the payments of the FDRs vide order dated 03.11.2014. However, no deficiency in service has been proved on the part of Ops No.3 & 4 as they neither issued the FDR in question nor received any amount thereof.
8. Therefore, in view of the facts narrated above, we hold that Ops No.1 & 2 are admittedly deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as they did not bother to appear in this case to prove the fact that they have returned the amount of FDR in question alongwith agreed rate of interest to the complainant and thus we have no option except to allow the present complaint.
9. So far as the future rate of interest on the maturity value on the said FDR is concerned, the same cannot be allowed with the agreed rate of 15% per annum due to peculiarity of circumstances as most of the loanee of the society have turned out to be defaulters. They have not returned the amount advanced to them as loan. In this eventuality, we take a lenient view and the future interest is awarded at the prevailing rate of simple interest i.e. @ 9% per annum.
In view of the above discussed facts, we accept the present complaint and Ops No.1 & 2 are held liable jointly and severally to comply with the following directions within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this order:-
To pay the amount of FDR bearing No.7093 dated 14.08.2004 amounting to Rs.30000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e. 14.08.2007 and thereafter on the matured amount i.e. (principal + interest) pay simple interest @ 9% Per Annum w.e.f. 15.08.2007 to till its actual realisation.
To pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court.17/03/2015
