DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.113 of 02-05-2019

Decided on 10-09-2019

Krishna Devi aged about 73 years W/o Surjit Singh S/o Kheta Singh R/o Village Poohli, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Poohli District Bathinda, through its Secretary.

2.The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.B.L Sachdeva, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Sh.Harraj Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

Manisha, Member

1. The complainant Krishna Devi (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties i.e. The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is permanent resident of village Poohli. Being wife of an agriculturist, in order to earn livelihood, she deposited her entire life savings to invest in the shape of FDRs.

3. It is alleged that opposite parties are registered society under the Societies Act vide registration No.264 dated 19.1.1928. It is a reputed society. Punjab Government has honoured the secretary of opposite parties on 15.8.2013. Opposite parties in the financial year 2012-13 took the first position in Nabard. As such, they are working under Punjab Government. They are assuring their customers that their money is safe with them and Punjab Government will be responsible for the entire amount payable to their customers.

4. It is further alleged that as per Section 38 and condition Nos.13 and 14 of Bye Laws, opposite parties shall be bound to pay the interest upon term deposit amount to the customers. As per complainant, she has also deposited amount with opposite parties in the shape of FDRs:-

   FDR Account No.	Date	Due Date	Amount
   ____	20/4/10	___	Rs.1,00,000/-
   ____	21/12/10	____	Rs.1,00,000/-
   ____	25/1/11	____	Rs.50,000/-
   ___	28/12/11	_____	Rs.1,70,000/-
   		Total	Rs.4,20,000/-

    

5. It is alleged that the complainant has also saving account No.3531612 or 12 in which she has deposited Rs.3025/-. On 18.4.2019, the complainant approached opposite parties for payment of amount and to withdraw the amount, but they started postponing the matter on one or other pretext. It was told that they have not sufficient fund in the society to pay the amount. As per complainant, due to non-payment of amount of FDRs, she has been caused mental tension, agony and pains. Opposite parties have also failed to provide the services and rather deficient in providing the services.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to release the payment of saving bank account as well payment of FDRs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. She has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In their joint written version, opposite parties have raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint. She is not member of opposite party No.1. The jurisdiction of this Forum is barred U/s 82 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as the complainant has not availed the efficacious remedy available with her before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. She has not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 and 80 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act before filing the complaint. She has not approached this Forum with clean hands. She has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint does not fall within the purview of Section 12 of 'Act'. The complicated and intricate questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, which require elaborate oral and documentary evidence. The witnesses are also required to be cross-examined. It is not possible before this Forum through summary procedure. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

7. On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.1 is a society and complainant is not even its member. After controverting all other averments, opposite parties have reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. Parties were asked to produce evidence.

9. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 2.5.2019, (Ex.C1); photocopies of FDRs, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5) and photocopy of saving account, (Ex.C6).

10. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties did not produce any evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

12. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant has pleaded that she has deposited amount in the shape of FDRs. Opposite parties have denied this fact mainly for want of knowledge. The complainant has produced photocopies of long term deposit receipts, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5). These are signed by the cashier and secretary of the society. It is also admitted that this amount is payable to the complainant, but the society is unable to pay amount for want of funds and amount will be paid when opposite parties will be having sufficient funds. There is no rebuttal to this documentary evidence. Therefore, the documentary evidence proves the case of the complainant.

13. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that Opposite parties have referred Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act to plead that the jurisdiction of the Courts is barred. Consumers are provided additional remedy U/s 3 of 'Act'. Therefore, jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred.

    To support these contentions, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon:-

    i) 2004 AIR (SC) 448 Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others.

    ii) 2014 (78) RCR (Civil) 113 Siddarth Dalit Motor Vahatuk Co-op. Society Vs. Sanjay Dadu Sasane and Anr.

    iii) 2012 (1) CLT 199 Anil Pahwa Vs. Baldeep Singh & Other.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 & 80 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. She has claimed refund of amounts. She has not produced any evidence to prove the deposit of amount. Therefore, she does not fall within the purview of U/s 12 of 'Act'.

15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant has claimed that amount was deposited in the years 2010 and 2011. Then secretary of opposite party No.1 committed fraud with the society and he has embezzled lakhs of rupees of the society. The Society has already initiated the proceedings against the secretary. A sum of Rs.59,53,887/- is lying deposited with opposite party No.1 in the account of concerned secretary. If the order is passed by the competent authority for payment to the complainant and other aggrieved persons, same be ordered to be released by opposite parties from the account of concerned secretary. The complainant has no right to seek refund through the process of this Forum. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and it be dismissed with cost.

16. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant.

17. Opposite parties have pleaded that as per Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. The matter was examined by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Anil Pahwa Vs. Baldeep Singh (Supra) and it was observed that Section 3 of 'Act' confers additional remedy on the Consumer Forum. The matter of refund or deposits where the amount has not been refunded by Co-operative Society in respect of provisions under the Co-operative Society Act, Consumer Forum would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others (Supra), has observed that the remedy of Consumer Forum is in addition and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts. It was rather further observed that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to decide the dispute is not barred because of even the remedy of arbitration provided under the Co-operative Societies Act. In the case of Siddarth Dalit Motor Vahatuk Co-op. Society (Supra) similar objections of jurisdiction of this Forum was raised by society. Hon'ble State Commission, Maharashtra held that objection is not tenable.

    Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well Hon'ble National Commission, jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred and complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

18. Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainant has pleaded that she has deposited Rs.4,20,000/- in the shape of FDRs. Copies of these FDRs are also produced on record as Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. She has also deposited Rs.3025/- in the saving account. Ex.C6, also proves this fact. Opposite parties have not produced any rebuttal evidence to contradict this evidence of the complainant. In the written version also, they have given evasive reply.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund the following amounts of FDRs alongwith interest admissible to this amount as FDRs till date of payment and amount of Rs.3025/- of saving account with interest:-:-

20. It is made clear that since the complaint has been filed through Secretary and Registrar Co-operative Society. These authorities will not be personally liable for making payment. The payment is to be made from the account/assets of the society i.e. The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited.

21. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

22. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    10-09-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member