Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/121

Harmit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary, The Dalla Multipurpose Co-opt agriculture service society - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Charanjit Singh Ghai, Adv

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. : 121 of 19.09.2014

                                      Date of decision                  : 18.02.2015

 

 

Harmit Singh son of Norang Singh, resident of Village Dalla, PO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, Distt. Rupnagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                   ....Complainant

 

                                                  Versus

 

1. The Secretary, The Dalla Multipurpose Co-op. Agri. Service Society

    Ltd., Dalla, PO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, Distt.

    Rupnagar.        

2. The President, Sh. Swaran Singh, The Dalla Multipurpose Co-op. Agri.

    Service Society Ltd., Dalla, PO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chamkaur

    Sahib, Distt. Rupnagar.        

3. The Deputy Registrar, The Co-op. Societies, Mini Secretariat,

    Rupnagar.

                                                                                                                                                 ....Opposite Parties

 

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SHRI V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

                             Sh. Charanjit Singh Ghai Advocate, counsel for

                             the complainant

Sh. Harpreet Singh Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             Sh. Harmit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

                             i)        To pay the amount of FDR No. 0000045 dated

                                      28.12.2012 amounting to Rs.4,88,759/- and

                                      FDR No. 0000058, with date of maturity as

25.4.2013, amounting to Rs.2,43,270/-, alongwith interest @ 9-1/2% P.A. till realization,

          ii)       To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards loss/damages

                   caused to him.

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had deposited amounts in the shape of fixed deposits vide FDR bearing No. 0000045 dated 28.12.2012 amounting to Rs.4,88,759/-, with date of maturity as 27.3.2013,  rate of interest as 9-1/2% P.A., Khata No. 75, page No. 1 and FDR No. 0000058, amounting to Rs.2,43,270/-, with date of maturity as 25.4.2013 & rate of interest as 9-1/2% P.A. The original FDRs are with him, the maturity dates of which have already expired. He approached the O.Ps. and requested them to pay the amount of the said FDRs. alongwith interest, as he was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. As such, he had made an application to the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rupnagar i.e. O.P. No. 3 in that regard on 9.6.2014 and had also served a legal notice dated 8.8.2014 upon the O.Ps., but to no use. The said act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service, due to which, he has suffered harassment, mentally as well as financially. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, separate written statements were filed by the O.Ps., however, taking similar preliminary objections; that a similar complaint is pending before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rupnagar, regarding the same question of law, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain & try the present complaint, as the jurisdiction under the provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 is barred to challenge the order/decision before any court/Forum.  On merits also, similar stand has been taken by all the O.Ps., stating that the complainant had deposited the amount in the shape of savings and not as FDR. There has been embezzlement in the society, regarding which inquiry is still pending and the complainant cannot be said to be entitled to receive the amount till decision of the said enquiry. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with cost.

 

4.                       On being called upon to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex. C2, various other documents Ex.C1, Ex. C3 to C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of Sh. Swaran Singh. President, Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Smt. Barjinder Kaur, Deputy Registrar, Ex. OP-2, affidavit of Sh. Karamjit Singh, Secretary, Ex. OP-3, photocopy of statement of account of the complainant Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. raised objection that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, as per the provisions of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs, because the complainant had already filed a complaint before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rupnagar. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he had filed a complaint in the shape of application dated 9.6.2014 (Ex. C6), to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rupnagar, i.e. O.P. No.3, against the Secretary of the aforesaid Society, regarding non-payment of the maturity amount of the FDRs even after expiry of maturity date(s), but no action was taken by the O.P. No.3, so far. He submitted that being a consumer he is entitled to file the instant complaint, and the objection raised by the O.Ps. that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum is baseless. 

 

                   Section 82 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 reads as under:-

“Bar of jurisdiction of Court:- (1)    Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of:-

(a)      the registration of a co-operative society or its bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;

(b)     the removal of a committee;

(c)     any dispute required under Section 55 to be referred to the Registrar; and

(d)     any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a co-operative society.

(2)     While a co-operative society is being wound up no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.

(3)     Save as provided in this Act. No order decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any court on any ground whatsoever.”

 

                   As per provisions of Section 82, reproduced above, the complainant has not been barred to file the instant complaint.The mere fact that some other remedy has been provided, to an aggrieved under some other law, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora in view of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under:-

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law—The provisions

of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the

provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

 

In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the counsel for the O.Ps. is meritless and the instant complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable. In the case ‘Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Ded) through L.R. & Ors.’ I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the remedy under the Act has been provided in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction. It has been further held that merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the Members and the Management of the Society under the Act, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Forums under the Act, expressly and intentionally. Reliance is also placed on the case decided by our own Hon’ble State Commission titled as ‘Mukhtiar Singh vs. Malwinder Singh Battu and Others’ reported in 2011 (2) CLT 635.

 

7.                The second objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. was that the complainant had deposited the amount in question with the O.Ps. in saving account and not in the shape of FDR. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had deposited the amounts in the shape of FDR and not in saving account, as is evident from the Fixed Deposit Receipts, Ex.C3 & C4. On perusal of the Fixed Deposit receipts,  Ex.C3 & C4, which were duly issued by the Secretary, The Dalla Multipurpose Co-operative Agriculture Service Society i.e. O.P. No.1, it is revealed that the said amounts were deposited in the fixed deposit. Therefore, the above said objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. is also not sustainable, hence, rejected.

 

8.                The third objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. was that there has been embezzlement in the society, regarding which enquiry is still pending, therefore, the amount deposited by the complainant cannot be disbursed to him till the decision of the said enquiry. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has nothing to do with the internal affairs of the O.Ps. and the maturity date of the FDRs having already been expired, he is entitled to get the maturity amount alongwith interest till realization. The amount invested in the said FDRs was needed for the marriage of his daughter, but the O.Ps. have not paid the same to him and he had to arrange money for the marriage of his daughter from some other sources. Hence, the O.Ps. are deficient in providing service and they be directed to pay the amounts of the FDRs alongwith interest @ 9-1/2% P.A. and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and also the litigation expenses.

 

                   Even if there has been any embezzlement, it is for the O.Ps. to look into that matter, and the complainant has nothing to do with the same, because it is nowhere the allegation of the O.Ps. that the complainant was involved in the said embezzlement. Therefore, he was certainly entitled to get the maturity amount on the due date. In the case of “Bondi Co-op. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Bondi vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.” 1997(1), All India Land Laws Reported (P & H) 312, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Hight Court has held that Passbook clearly shows that member deposited the amount; when he wants to take back the money society cannot take up the plea that cashier had embezzled the because the society is responsible for the acts of its employees and that the authorities below rightly concluded that the member was entitled to the refund of the deposited amount.

 

9.                In the instant case, by not paying the amount under the FDRs. on the due date, to the complainant, the O.Ps. have committed deficiency in rendering service. We find support for this view taken from the case ‘M/s Sagar Suri Estate and Finance Ltd. Vs. Sh. Prem Lal’ 2001 (2) CPC 396 wherein it has held that where a depositor is deprived of his legal right by a firm or a company illegally from utilizing his depoisited amount, such an act, certainly is an act of deficiency in service. Due to non-payment of the maturity amount of the FDRs. by the O.Ps., the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental & physical harassment and has to unnecessarily approach this Forum to get the relief, to which he was otherwise entitled to. From the receipt, Ex.C3, it is evident that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.4,88,759/- with the O.Ps. in the shape of fixed deposit, which had matured on 27.03.2013. He had also deposited another sum of Rs.2,43,270/- vide receipt (Ex. C4), in the shape of fixed deposit, which had also matured on 25.4.2013. Perusal of FDR (Ex. C4) reveals that the rate of interest mentioned therein is 9-1/2% P.A. whereas in the FDR (Ex. C3), the column meant for rate of interest has been left blank. Since the deposits made in the said FDRs were for short term of 2-3 months, therefore, it can easily be inferred that rate of interest in case of both the FDRs was @ 9-1/2% P.A. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the O.Ps. are liable to pay interest on the amounts deposited in both the FDRs @ 9-1/2% P.A. Perusal of FDR Ex. C4 further reveals that the column meant for date of issuance of the same has been left blank. Since the said FDR was issued for a period of 2 months only, and was to mature on 25.4.2013, therefore, it can easily be said that the said FDR was issued on 25.2.2013. With these facts & circumstances, we hold that since the amounts have not been paid till date, the O.Ps. are liable to pay the amounts deposited by the complainant through the said FDRs alongwith interest @ 9-1/2% P.A. from the date of deposit till realization. He is also entitled to get compensation on account of the mental agony & physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.

10.               In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps., who shall be liable jointly & severally, in the following manner:-

i)  To pay the sum of Rs.4,88,759/- in respect of FDR No.0000045, alongwith interest @ 9-1/2% P.A. from the date of deposit i.e. 28.12.2012 till realization,

ii)       To pay the sum of Rs.2,43,270/- in respect of FDR No.0000058, alongwith interest @ 9-1/2% P.A. from the date of deposit i.e. 25.02.2013 till realization,

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation,

iv)      To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs.

 

                    The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

11.               The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                            (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 18.02.2015                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (V.K. KHANNA)

 MEMBER

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.