1. Brief facts leading to the institution of present complaint are that as per the advice & inducement of OP Nos. 1 to 3 and after verifying from the office of Ops No.4 & 5, the complainants invested their savings with OP No.1 through OP Nos. 2 & 3 and Ops No.1 to 3 had issued two Fixed Deposit Receipts i.e. FDR No.7939 (old No.5407) dated 11.04.2005 (w.e.f. 28.03.2005) having due date of maturity as 28.3.2006 amounting to Rs.70,000/- and FDR No.7940 (old No.5409) dated 11.04.2005 (w.e.f. 22.03.2005) having due date of maturity 22.3.2006 amounting to Rs.50,000/- for a period of twelve months each. It has been further averred by the complainant that OPs No.1 to 3 had assured that the aforesaid FDR’s shall be renewed automatically after the period of maturity till the release of payment or till the complainants withdraw the same. The OPs No.1 to 3 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 OPs No.2 & 3 and being supervised by OPs Nos. 4 & 5. It has further been averred that the complainants had approached the OP No.5 personally and also wrote letters to them for arranging to make payment of the amount of FDR’s but OPs No.4 & 5 have not taken any action against OPs No. 1 to 3. Hence, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops and thus the complainants have 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 05.10.2011 whereas OP No.3 has been given up by the counsel for the complainant being unnecessary party vide statement dated 16.05.2013 recorded separately.
The OPs No. 4 & 5 submitted their reply jointly raising preliminary objections qua dismissal of complaint being bad for misjoinder of parties. It has further been urged by Ops No.4 & 5 that they have unnecessarily been impleaded as parties to the present complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the same was barred under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. It has further been urged that an FIR No.133/08 under Sections 406, 467 & 420 of IPC has been registered against Ops No.1 to 3 & others at police station Sadar Ambala City on the report of Audit Officer, Co.op Societies, Ambala and the said case was pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala at the time of filing of the reply. Regarding investment in the FDR’s, the complainants had never verified from the office of Ops No.4 & 5. The officials of the cooperative department conduct necessary audit of the records as well inspection of the societies from time to time. OP No.5 had never assured the complainants’ that they will get money as alleged and it is incorrect that there is any conspiracy between the Ops rather the answering Ops have no concern with the FDR’s in question 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 Complainants has tendered affidavit of complainant No.1 as Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants whereas the representative of Ops No.4 & 5 had tendered a statement on 16.01.2014 that he did not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Ops No.4 & 5 and in view of his statement, the evidence of OP No.4 & 5 was closed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants as well as authorized representative of Ops No. 4 & 5 and gone through the record very carefully. The learned counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainants had invested huge amount in the FDRs with the OPs-society and the maturity amount of the FDRs have not been paid to the complainants and thus the Ops are deficient in service and responsible to pay the matured amount of the FDRs in question and prayed for acceptance of the complaint against the OPs.
5. On the other hand, representative of Ops No. 4 & 5 argued that the complaint against the Cooperative societies is not maintainable before this Forum. It has further been urged that on the basis of irregularities & shortcomings detected during the audit of the OP society, an FIR against Ops Nos.1 to 3 and others was lodged with Police authorities. Therefore, the question of deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.4 & 5 does not arise and complaint against them may be dismissed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for complainants as well as representative of OP No.4 & 5 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 complainants has firmly stated that this 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 complainants 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 complainants 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 FDRs in question were 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 FDRs in question itself is a grave deficiency in service on the part of Ops Nos. 1 &2. Besides it, counsel for complainants have 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 OP Nos. 4 & 5 as they neither issued the FDRs 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’s in question alongwith agreed rate of interest to the complainants 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’s 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 communication of this order:-
To pay the amount of FDRs dated 11.04.2005 bearing Nos.7939 amounting to Rs. 70000/- and FDR No.7940 amounting to Rs.50,000/- respectively to the complainants alongwith simple interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e. 28.03.2006 and 22.03.2006 respectively and thereafter on the matured amount i.e. (principal + interest)pay simple interest @ 9% Per Annum w.e.f. 29.03.2006 & 23.03.2006 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Court.
