Haryana

StateCommission

A/1077/2015

V.C.SINDHWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PNB EMPLOPYEES COOPERATIVE S.E. THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK GIROTRA

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

Appeal No.1077 of 2015

Date of the Institution:17.12.2015

Date of Decision: 18.11.2016

 

V.C. Sindhwani the than Secretary India Bank Employees (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Green Road, Rohtak.

Second Address:- Wazir Chand Sindhwani son of Shri  Ram Lubhaya Sindhwani H.No.613/20 Koyal Zomplex, Amargarh, Kaithal (Haryana) now at present R/o House No.1086/15, Model Town, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

                                                                                                .….Appellant

Versus

 

1.      The PNB Employee Cooperative (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Geeta Complex, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Secretary.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent/complainant

 

2.      All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Green Road Rohtak through its Administrator.

                                                                             ….Performa Respondent.

 

CORAM:    Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   

 

Present:-    Mr.Deepak Girotra , Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. S.S Dalal, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, MEMBER:

 

Challenge in this appeal against the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, whereby complaint No.24 of 2010 was filed by respondent-complainant has been accepted and following relief was granted:-

“As such it is directed that respondent No.1 and 2 shall refund the maturity amount of FDR Ex.C-1 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity of deposit till its actual realization to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rs.two thousand five hundred  only) as litigation expenses. However, amount (if any) already refunded by the opposite parties on account of alleged FDR No.8660 shall be deducted from the maturity amount. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Compliant is disposed of accordingly.”

2.      Complainant was having society known as Thrift & Credit Society (Registered) and it deposited amount of Rs.5,57,310/- with opposite party (OP) No.2. in the shape of FDR and maturity value comes to Rs.7,71,755/-. The total amount payable by the opposite parties comes to Rs.37,45,450/-. It requested the OPs to release the aforesaid FDR amount, thereafter, OP No.1 issued two cheques dated 08.02.2008 and 17.09.2008 for Rs.2,50,000/- each whereas total maturity amount was Rs.37,45,450/-. It was alleged that at the time of issuing these cheques opposite party No.1 assured to release the remaining amount, but nothing has paid. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Opposite parties, contested complaint by filing their separate reply. Opposite party No.2 submitted that complainant did not supplied the required documents. Opposite party No.2 was under the control of Registrar or opposite party No.1, hence no cause of action arise against opposite party No.2. The charge of that society was taken over by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Rohtak, so it was no concern with the affairs of society.

4.      Opposite party No.1 submitted that there was no interest of opposite party No.1 Inspector incharge to contest this suit. The matter is between the plaintiff and society. Hence the opposite party No.1 was no desirous to defend the same. It was also submitted that All India Bank Employees Cooperative Urban SETC Society Ltd.,Rohtak is registered by ARCS Rohtak, so there was no need to defend this case and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5.      On the appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint  as mentioned above.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      It is not disputed that OPs have received Rs.5,57,310/- vide Annexure A-3. It is also not disputed that maturity amount comes to Rs.7,71,755/- (Annexure A-3).  As per written statement of the OPs, they did not deny the aforesaid amount of FDR. Since the OPs have received the aforesaid amount, they cannot deny to release the maturity amount of complainant. OPs are liable to pay the aforesaid amount. The findings of learned District Forum based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 18th, 2016

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.