Delhi

North East

CC/136/2021

Braham Din Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sahu Co-Operative Urban T/C Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 136/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

	1.   2. 3.	Sh. Braham Din Pandey S/o Lt. Sh. Nand Kishor Pandey, Neeraj Pandey Sandeep Pandey Both S/o Sh. Braham Din Pandey All R/o A 697, St. No. 7, part I, Ist Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094		Complainants
		Versus
		The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd., C-8/173, Yamuna Vihar,  Delhi-110053		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		27.09.21 08.06.23 19.09.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that the Complainants are members of The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd., Opposite Party vide registration no. 004372, 004812 and 005280 respectively.  In year 2008, Complainant Neeraj Pandey availed loan of Rs. 30,000/- from Opposite Party under bond no. 7854. In 2009 Complainant Sandeep Pandey availed loan of Rs. 50,000/- from Opposite Party under bond no. 8084 and Complainant Braham Din Pandey availed loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Opposite Party under bond no. 8083. It is stated that till 2010, Complainants made payment of EMIs of aforesaid personal loan without any default. In year 2010, Complainant Braham Din Pandey requested Opposite Party for loan of Rs. 2,40,000/- and later on Opposite Party merged the all aforesaid personal loan into one loan account of Rs. 3,80,000/- against property and Complainant handed over the original document of property number A 697, Gali No. 7, Part-I, Ist Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 110094 vide bond no. 008641. The Complainant along with their respective family had permanently shifted to VPO Nadula, District Allahabad and stayed there for 3-4 years therefore could not pay EMI on time. This fact was communicated to Opposite Party. On 13.01.15 Complainant contacted Opposite Party and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-in his account and requested to separate all three aforesaid loan accounts in their respective names, thereby they can separately pay the settled EMI diligently. But, it was  the utter shock for the Complainants, the Opposite Party instead of considering their request, started bargaining on one ground or the other. Thereafter Complainants started paying their respective EMIs in their respective accounts. It is stated that as per the demands and requests of Opposite Party, Complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- into their loan account but till date Opposite Party has not given satisfactory answer to Complainant and charging interest arbitrarily. In October 2019 Complainant No.1 visited office of Opposite Party to know statement of account of their loan but Opposite Party pressurized Complainant to deposit lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- into their loan account and when the Complainant asked about the basis of calculation, then, the Opposite Party  threatened that they have succeeded to get ex-parte award against the Complainants without their knowledge and consent in 25.01.12.Thereafter Complainant tried to get case details from their source and came to know that neither Opposite Party nor arbitrator provides opportunity to Complainant and passed said awards against Complainant. On 22.10.19 Complainant sent request letter through speed post to Opposite Party but till dated Opposite Party did not give any reply to his application. On 16.11.19 Complainant moved an RTI application against Opposite Party but Opposite Party started avoiding Complainant on one ground or other. The Complainants visited office of Opposite Party many times but Opposite Party are avoiding Complainants. The Complainants are ready to pay entire EMI amount to Opposite Party in one time but Opposite Party is avoiding the Complainants on one pretext or the other. The Complainants had served legal notice to Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not take any pain. Complainants have prayed to settle the claim of the Complainants in respect of the aforesaid loan account and provide NOC to the Complainants and also provide the certified copy of the awards passed against the Complainant. They have also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service of notice on 29.01.22. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.22.

Evidence of the Complainants

3. The Complainants in support of their complaint filed affidavit of Sh. Braham Din Pandey and Sh. Neeraj Pandey wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
5. It is the case of the Complainants that they being members of the Opposite Party society availed personal loans separately and later on, Opposite Party merged the all aforesaid personal loan into one loan account of Rs. 3,80,000/- against property. It is also submitted that for 3-4 years they paid the regular EMIs but due to some problem, they defaulted. Later, they requested the Opposite Party to separate the loan accounts in their respective names in order to pay EMIs regularly but the Opposite Party did not consider their request. It is alleged that as per the demands and requests of Opposite Party, Complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- into their loan account but till date Opposite Party has not given satisfactory answer to Complainant and charging interest arbitrarily. It is also alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party pressurized Complainant to deposit lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- into their loan account and when the Complainant asked about the basis of calculation, then, the Opposite Party  threatened that they have succeeded to get ex-parte award against the Complainants without their knowledge and consent in 25.01.12. It is contended that they were not heard on the matter and the award was passed against them. It is further submitted that the Complainants are ready to pay entire EMI amount to Opposite Party in one time but Opposite Party is avoiding the Complainants on one pretext or the other. Complainants have prayed to settle the claim of the Complainants in respect of the aforesaid loan account and provide NOC to the Complainants and also provide the certified copy of theawards passed against the Complainant. They have also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment.
6. It is to be noted that the Opposite Party was proceeded ex-parte, however, during the course of arguments, Opposite Party submitted certain documents related to the matter which were not denied or controverted by the Complainants. Those documents include Copy of Award by the Registrar, Cooperative societies against the complainants, Copy of certificate of Award and warrant of arrest dated 24.08.2022 in execution of said award.
7. The perusal of the above mentioned documents shows that the matter pertaining to loan (Subject matter of complaint) has already been adjudicated by the competent authority i.e. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi and an award has been passed on 25.01.2012 against the Complainants. After the said award, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies had issued a certificate of award dated 30.08.2012. It is also evident from the documents submitted that in execution of the said award, the Recovery Officer, Co-operative Societies issued warrant of arrest dated 24.08.2022 against the Complainants.
8. Keeping above in view, we are of the considered opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to determine the issue in question. The Order passed by a The Registrar, Co-operative Societies cannot be questioned or assailed before a Consumer Commission. The Registrar while adjudicating the matter between the Society and its debtors acts as quasi-judicial authority and if the Complainants were actually aggrieved by the said award, they could have preferred an appeal or revision under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act,2003.
9. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed without costs.
10. Order announced on 19.09.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President