Haryana

StateCommission

RP/53/2016

BHASHKR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ROHTAK COOP NON AGRICULTURE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHOK AGGARWAL

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         Revision Petition No.53 of 2016

Date of Institution: 27.06.2016

                                                           Date of Decision: 29.07.2016

 

Bhashkar Gupta S/o Late Shri S.R.Gupta 63, Bhagat Singh Colony, Rohtak (Haryana).

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.         The Rohtak Co-operative Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Ltd,. Rohtak through its President Raj Malik W/o Inderjeet Singh Malik Having its office situated at Opposite Arya Nagar Police Post, Shantmai Chowk, Civil road, Rohtak.

2.         Raj Malik W/o Inderjeet Singh Malik The Rohtak Co-operative Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Rohtak having its office situated at Opposite Arya Nagar Police Post, Shantmai Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak.

3.         Inderjeet Singh Malik, Hony. Secretary, The rohtak Cooperative Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Rohtak R/p/B-3/1853, Shantmai Chowk, Opp. Arya Nagar Police Post, Civil Road, Rohtak.

                                                …..Respondents

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate counsel for petitioner.

                                   

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. This Revision petition has been filed by Sh. Bhashkar Gupta – complainant, against the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Forum’), vide which, his execution application has been disposed of by issuing the following direction :-

“that DH shall refund the amount of Rs.9930/- to the JDs. Sale certificate / Recovery warrant dated 10.03.2016 issued by this Forum is hereby cancelled and DH is directed to hand over the original FDR to the JDs within 15 days.”

2. Briefly stated, the complainant Sh. Bhaskar Gupta along with his brother Sh. Hitesh Gupta deposited certain amounts in the shape of FDR on different dates with the OP, who issued FDRs in the joint names of the complainant and his brother. On the maturity of the FDR, their amounts were to be refunded by the OP to the complainant along with interest as per terms and conditions of the FDR. When the complainant sought the refund of the different amounts and the OPs failed to do the needful, the complainant alleging deficiency in service approached the District Forum for the recovery of the amount. The OPs apart from contesting the complaint by raising certain technical objections pleaded that the deposit of the complainant was safe, but its payment was subject to terms and conditions and the rules of the Society – OP and that the OP was entitled to get the same with interest any time as he himself had refused to accept the payment. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed on 17.06.2014 by directing the OPs to refund the maturity amount of FDR alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity till its actual realization. Aggrieved against this, the complainant filed Appeal before the Harana State Consumer Commission on question of interest, which was dismissed on 11.12.2014. Against this order, the complainant has gone in Appeal / Revision before the Hon’ble National Commission, which is still pending.
3. In the meantime, the complainant has filed the execution application for the learned District Forum and prayed for keeping the same pending till the final decision of his Revision pending before the Hon’ble National Commission. But, the same has been dismissed by the learned District Forum by issuing the aforesaid directions. Against this order dated 15.06.2016 of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in Revision by contending that the executing Court has gone behind the decree and as such was not competent to issue the direction regarding handing over of the FDR to the OP, because there was no such direction in the original order. Its further contended by the complainant – petitioner that the execution court should have kept the execution pending as the appeal against the original order in the complaint was still pending before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
4. After going through the record and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any legal infirmity with the order passed by the learned District Forum. The directions issued by the learned District Forum are consistent with the principle of natural justice and are in the nature of necessary steps to be taken in further course of litigation as well as final Redressal of the dispute.  The OPs – society shall preserve the FDRs, in question, to be produced by them as and when directed by the competent Court. Accordingly the Revision is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.  

 

July 29th, 2016              Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.