Tamil Nadu

Thiruvarur

CC/6/2014

V.T.Elango - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary,T-788 Co-Operative Primary Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd,Thiruthuraipundi - Opp.Party(s)

V.Arasu

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                         Date of Filling: 20.02.2014.

                                         Date of Disposal:24.03.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TIRUVARUR.

 

THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,                  PRESIDENT.

THIRU.R.RAMESH.B.COM.,M.A.,                  MEMBER-1

TMT.K.SIVASANKARI.B.SC.,M.C.A.,M.Phil.,  MEMBER-2

CC/06/2014

DECIDED ON THIS 24^th  DAY OF  MARCH 2015.

 

               V.T.Elango.M.A.B.L.,

    S/o Thambusami

    Nalanallur Village,

    Mettupalayam Post,

                Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk,

                Tiruvarur District.                                                                        Complainant

                                                                             Versus

1. Secretratry,

T-788, Primary Agriculture Co-Operative&

Rural Development Bank Ltd.,

Thiruthuraipoondi.

2. Deputy-Registrar,

Agriculture Co-OperativeSociety,

Kasukara Chetti Street, Mannarkudi Town,

Tiruvarur District.

3. Joint Registrar,

Agriculture Co-Operative Society,

Tiruvarur Town & District.                                                           Opposite Parties

 

 

This complaint coming up for final hearing on 09.03.2015 upon

perusing the complaint, and other material papers on record and  on hearing the arguments of Thiru.V.Arasu,  counsel for the complainant and  the opposite parties having been set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following

ORDER

 

By President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal,B.A.,B.L.,

 

                        This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                        2.The gist of the complaint  filed by the complainant is that he has remitted Rs.13,360/- as share capital of A Group Member, he obtained loan amount of Rs.2,67,400/- from the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of Tourist Taxi and subsequently under the Special Scheme promulgate by the Tamil Nadu Government in the year 2010, based on the letter dated 26.12.2011 received from the 1^st opposite party, the complainant paid 25% of the loan amount on 28.02.2011 and remaining 75% of the amount on 30.12.2011, thus discharging the entire loan due to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant demanded for the return of his share capital invested by him with the 1^st opposite party as he no longer wanted to continue as the member. The 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service by refusing to oblige him. He sent a registered notice on 31.01.2012 to the 1^st opposite party, for which the latter sent a reply dated 03.02.2012, stating that as per the rule 44 of the Tamil Nadu  Co-Operative Societies rules 1988 share capital could not be refunded as the society was not having any profit. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties also did not take any steps to cause the refund of the share capital to the complainant and thus they have also committed deficiency of service.  The complainant therefore prays for the refund of Rs.13,360/-, the share capital with the 1^st opposite party with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.01.2012 till the date of payment, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with the cost of this litigation and grant and such and other reliefs as this Forum may deem fit.

                        3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 were absent on the day of 1^st hearing of the complaint, and fresh notice was ordered to the 3^rd opposite party and the learnedGovernment Pleader on 07.05.2014 undertook to file Vakkalath for all the opposite parties and several adjournments were granted for filing his Vakkalath as well as written arguments of the opposite parties.  Neither the opposite parties appeared before this Forum nor the Government pleader also filed Vakkalath for the opposite parties and therefore the opposite parties were set exparte on 24.07.2014.The complainant filed his proof affidavit and filed 7 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A7, written arguments have also been submitted by the complainant.

4. Points for consideration:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so what?

5.Point 1:The main grievance of the complainant is that his share capital or

Rs.13,360/- is not refunded by the opposite parties in spite of his demand by a registered notice as he does not want to become a member any longer and thus they have committed deficiency of service. In Exhibit A2, the reply notice sent by the opposite parties, it is stated that as per the rule of 44 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Society Rules 1988, the share capital could be refunded only if the society is functioning with profit and as per the Audit Report for the year ending on 31.03.2011, the society had incurred loss of Rs.8,00,39,828/-and therefore the share capital could not be refunded.  But the contention of the complainant is that he has nothing to do with the alleged loss incurred by the 1^st opposite party and as per the Rule 29 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Society Rules 1988, the share capital has to be refunded to him by the 1^st opposite party and the said Rule 44 relates only to the fixation of the value of the share.

6. The Rule 29 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Society Rules 1988, provide

for the procedure for refund of the value of the share or interest in the capital of the society to individual member on the cessation membership as per the notification issued under Sec.21(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act 1983. The provisions of the Sec.21(1)(b) is:-“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, every individual member other than an associate member of every financing bank and every apex society shall cease to be a member of such bank or society, as the case may, on and from such date as the Government may, be notification, specify and such individual member shall be entitled to receive his share or interest in the capital and other moneys due to him in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed”

7.Therefore as per the said provisions a member of a Bank or Society as the

case may be shall cease to be a member of the said Bank or Society from such date as the Government may by notification specify and such individual member shall be entitled to receive his share or interest in the capital and other moneys due to him in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. Therefore a member can get refund of his share or interest in the capital only on his ceasing to be a member by way of a notification of the Government and only for those members on the cessation of the membership, the refund of the share capital could be made. There is no provision in the Act for a member of the society enabling him to get refund of his share capital at his whims and fancies.

8. A shareholder of the company or society is deemed to be one of the owners

of the Bank or Society and he is to incur profit or loss in accordance with the performance of the society or Bank.  Further as per the rule 44 (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Society Rules 1988 the valuation of the share or interest of the 1^st opposite party is based on the financial position as shown in the latest Audited Balance Sheet of the society subject to the maximum of the actual amount received by the society in respect of such share or interest in the capital from such member. In Exhibit A2 the reply given by the 1^st opposite party it is pointed out that the society is running at the loss of Rs.8,00,39,828/- for the Audit year ending on 31.03.2011.In such circumstances there is no scope for refund of any amount to the complainant.Therefore the refusal of the opposite parties to refund the share capital of Rs.13,360/- to the complainant cannot be termed to be deficiency of service on their part.

                       

9. Point 2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.

                                This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me on this 24^th day of March 2015.

 

MEMBER   I                                              PRESIDENT                             MEMBER   II

LIST OF  DOCUMENTS FILLED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1/ Dt.31.01.2012: Office copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite  

                        parties.

Ex. A2/ Dt.03.02.2012: Xerox copy of the reply sent by the to the 1^stopposite party to the

complainant.

Ex. A3/ Dt.01.11.2013:Office copy of thenotice sent by the complainant to the opposite

parties under the Right to Information Act.

 

Ex. A4/ Dt.05.11.2013: Office copy of copy of the letter sent by the to the 1^stopposite

party to the  complainant.

Ex. A5/ Dt.07.11.2013:Postal Acknowledgment card of the 2^nd opposite party received by

the complainant.

Ex. A6/ Dt.05.11.2013:Postal Acknowledgment card of the 3^rdopposite party received by

     the complainant.

Ex. A7/ Dt.05.11.2013:Postal Acknowledgment card of the 1^st opposite party received by

     the complainant.

 

        Sd                                                                 Sd                                            Sd

MEMBER  I                                               PRESIDENT                             MEMBER   II