| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 213 of 08-08-2019 Decided on : 29-09-2021 Harpal Singh aged 33 years S/o Sh. Lakhvir Singh R/o Village Poohli, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Poohli District Bathinda, through its Secretary. The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Poohli District Bathinda, through its President. (Deleted) Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Bathinda. (Deleted) Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Bathinda. (Deleted) The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. (Deleted)
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Present For the complainant : Sh. B.S Mann, Advocate. For opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Harraj Singh, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.2 to 4 & 6 : Deleted. Opposite party No. 5 : Exparte ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Harpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against opposite parties The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties) . Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of village Poohli, Tehsil & District Bathinda. He is member of opposite party No.1 society having account No.1262 with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is registered society under the Societies Act vide Registration No.264. 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, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are working under Punjab Government. Opposite parties 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 No. 3 & 4 shall be bound to pay the interest upon term deposit amount to the customers. As per complainant, he has also deposited the amount with opposite parties i.e The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited in the shape of Saving Bank Account :
S.B A/c No. | Date | Amount | 1262 | 22/07/13 | Rs.10,935/- |
It is further alleged that in the first week of May, 2016, complainant approached opposite parties for payment amount of Saving Bank Account, 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 due amount with interest. As per complainant, due to non-payment of amount of saving account, he 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 Rs. 10,935/- of saving bank account with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. He has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant, names of opposite parties No.2 to 4 and 6 were deleted from the array of opposite parties. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 5. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 5. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint. That 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 him before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. He has not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 and 80 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act before filing the complaint. He has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As such, he is not entitled to any relief from this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. 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. On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.1 is a society, but other averments have been denied. It is further pleaded that Secretary of the opposite party Society has committed fraud and cheating with the Society and embezzled lacs of Rupees for which Society has already initiated appropriate proceedings against the said Secretary of opposite party. All other averments of the complainant are denied. It is also denied for want of knowledge that the complainant has deposited the amount in Saving Bank Account. Opposite party No.1 has also reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his two affidavits dated 8-8-2019 & 17-9-2021 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of Pass Book (Ex. C-2) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 did not produce any 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 he is having saving account No. 1262 with opposite party No.1. The complainant has produced photocopy of Pass Book (Ex. C-2). 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 party No. 1 has raised legal objection regarding jurisdiction of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 has referred Sections 55 & 56 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act to plead that the remedy is only by way of reference for arbitration, but the disputes, which can be referred to arbitration are also detailed in Section 55 of 'Act'. Therefore, the dispute raised by the complainant does not fall within purview of Section 55/56 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. In this case, the dispute is only regarding refund of amount deposited by the complainant with opposite parties. It is not a dispute touching constitution, management, business of society and it is also not a dispute regarding member and past members. Opposite party No.1 has also 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 party No.1 has submitted that the complainant Lakhvir Singh is member of the society. He has also admitted this fact in the complaint. Therefore, the matter is to be governed by Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. As per Section 55 & 56 of 'Act', any dispute between the members and society or its committee is to be referred to Arbitration. The jurisdiction of the Courts is specifically barred. As per Section 82 of 'Act' also, jurisdiction of the Courts is barred. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that the complainant has not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 & 80 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. He has claimed refund of amount. He 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'. He has also not joined the President as party. He used to control and keep watch on work of the society as per rules and regulations of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that the complainant has claimed that amount was deposited in the year 2015. Then secretary of opposite party No.1 committed fraud with the society and he has embezzled lakhs of rupees of the society. Opposite party No.1 has already initiated the proceedings against the secretary. The complainant has no right to seek refund through the process of this Commission. 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 are co-operative society. First objection of opposite party No.1 is regarding maintainability of complaint and jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain this complaint. Opposite party No.1 has referred Section 55/56 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 to support their contentions. A perusal of Section 55 reveals that it is applicable when there is dispute touching constitution, management or business of co-operative society. In this case, the complainant has claimed refund of his amount deposited with opposite parties. Therefore, the dispute does not fall within the ambit of Section 55 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Opposite party No.1 has also pleaded that as per Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, jurisdiction of this Commission 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 Commission. 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 Commission 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/Commission 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 Commission is not barred and complaint is maintainable before this Commission. Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainant has produced copy of Pass Book as Ex.C-2 to prove that he has deposited an amount of Rs.10,935/- with opposite parties No.1 & 5. As per Ex. C-2, Rs. 10,935/- are lying in the account of complainant and till date said amount has not been refunded to him without any fault on his 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. The opposite parties were duty bound to make the payment of hard earned amount lying in saving account of complainant, 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 party Nos.1 & 5. Opposite parties No.1 & 5 are directed to refund the following amount of Saving Account with interest till date of payment.
Saving Bank A/c No. | Date | Amount | 1262 | 22/07/13 | Rs.10,935/- |
24. 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.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced:- 29-09-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh ) Member
| |
