BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


APPEAL No. 935/2007


Smt. Krishna Kanwar W/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, R/o Dodiyali, the. Ahore, Distt. Jalore through her special Power of Attorney Holder Shri Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Jhujar Singh, R/o Dodiyal, Tehsil Ahore, Distt. Jalore.

..Appellant-Complainant


VS


1.

The Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd, Ahore, Distt. Jalore through its Manager.
2.

The Administration the Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Ahore, Tehsil Ahore, Distt. Jalore.

..Respondents-Non-applicants


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. M.K. Gupta, counsel for the Appellant

Mr. D.M. Mathur, counsel for the Respondents


ORDER Dated:08.05.2009


PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER


This appeal arises out of the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jalore whereby the complaint was dismissed.


The Complainant filed the complaint alleging therein that he had deposited Rs. 74,672/- with the Non-applicant Society on 16.9.1996 and Rs. 65,000/- on 26.5.1998. The amount was to carry interest @ 17% per annum. The contention of the Complainant was that he received Rs. 58,377/- from the Society on 9.1.1997 and Rs. 22,812/- on 30.6.1998. For rest of the money, he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 2,35,402/- which includes the amount of interest + compensation and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.


We have heard both the counsels.



2


The learned District Forum was of the view that as per document Annexure-7, the Complainant had received back Rs. 74,672/- on 9.1.1997. As per this letter, the Complainant claimed only interest on the said amount. Apart from this, the learned District Forum relied upon Annexure -A2 to Annexture -A3 vide which the Complainant had received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,15,000/- and on the basis of these documents, nothing was found payable to the Complainant and consequently the complaint was dismissed.


We have perused Annexture-7, Annexture-A2 and Annexture-A3 from which prima-facie it appears that the outstanding amount has been paid by the Non-applicant to the Complainant. The learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that Annexture-A2 and A-3 are forged documents which should not be taken into consideration. It appears that Annexture A2 and A-3 bear the signatures of the Complainant. If these documents are claimed to be forged then the Complainant should have got them examined by an expert. These are the findings on merits but if this question is considered whether the Complainant is a consumer or not then our answer is that the Complainant is not a consumer. The allegations of the Complainant that he deposited certain sums on two occasions with the Society on interest @ 17% per annum but he did not receive full amount including the interest. We feel that the relationship of the Complainant and the Society in this transaction has been that of a debtor or a creditor. The Society by taking the amount on interest will not become a service provider to the Complainant.


In our view, the Complainant cannot be said to be a consumer and in case, certain amount is claimed by the Complainant then she should file Civil Suit in the appropriate court. On all accounts, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.


Cost easy.



Member Presiding Member


Hira Lal