The complainant Karamjit Kaur @ Surjeet Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission against opposite parties The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is permanent resident of village Maluka. She is member of opposite party No.1 society having account No.2511 and a sum of Rs.45,235/- is lying deposited in this account. Opposite party No.1 is registered society under the Societies Act. 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.
It is 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 deposited amount to the customers.
It is also alleged that complainant deposited Rs.45,235/- in the shape of FDR No.000242 A/c No.2511 dated 11.1.2012 with interest @ nine and half per annum having maturity date 11.1.2013 renewed from time to time.
It is further alleged that in the first week of January 2021, the complainant approached opposite parties to withdraw the amount of FDR, but they have been 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 FDR and saving account, she has been caused mental tension, agony 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 FDR Rs.45,235/- with interest @ 19% 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.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint. The complainant is not a 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 intentionally 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 35 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.
On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.1 is a society, but all other averments have been denied. It is pleaded that averments are vague in nature. It is also denied for want of knowledge that the complainant has deposited any amount. Opposite parties have also reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Parties were asked to produce evidence.
In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 24.3.2021, (Ex.C1) and photocopy of Long Term Deposit Receipts, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3) and closed the evidence.
To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Major Singh dated 20.12.2022, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.
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 proved that she has deposited amount in the shape of FDR. Opposite parties have denied this fact mainly for want of knowledge. The complainant has produced photocopy of Long Term Deposit Receipt (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3). 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.
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.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties have 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 amount. She has not produced any evidence to prove the deposit of amount. Therefore, he does not fall within the purview of U/s 12 of 'Act'.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the 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. 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.
We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant.
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 complaint.
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.
Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainant has pleaded that she has deposited Rs.45,235/- in the shape of FDR. To prove this fact, she has placed on record photocopy of Long Term Deposit (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3). As per Ex.C2, Rs.45,235/- has not been refunded to her without any fault on her part. Opposite parties have not produced any rebuttal evidence to contradict this evidence of the complainant. In the written version also, opposite parties have given evasive reply. Opposite parties were duty bound to make the payment of hard earned amount lying in FDR in time. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
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 amount of FDR with interest admissible to this amount till date of payment :-
FDR No.
| Date
| Amount
|
242
| 20/01/12
| Rs.45,235/-
|
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.
The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases and vacancy of post of members.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced:-
26-10-2023
- (R.L Mittal)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
