1.      Heard Mr. S. Anjani Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. 

2.      Above revision has been filed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, dated 14.03.2023, passed in First Appeal No.509 of 2017 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, dated 22.03.2017 passed in CC/558/2010), whereby District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, jointly and severally to refund the amount of FDRs and Saving Accounts of the complainants with interest @9% per annum from the dates of maturity of FDRs till the date of payment and litigation cost of Rs.3500/- and State Commission has dismissed the appeal.

3.      P.S. Singhal, Smt. Bimla and Dinesh Kumar (respondent-1 to 3) filed CC/558/2010 for directing the petitioner and respondents-4 to 6, jointly and severally to refund Rs.194905/- (principal amount), Rs.50000/- (interest), and pay litigation costs and compensation of Rs.6600/-. The complainants stated that All India Bank Employees Co-operative Urban (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Rohtak was a co-operative bank (for short the bank), registered under The Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. V.C. Sindhwani (opposite party-2) was posted as the Secretary and Manoj (Kumar (opposite party-3) was posted as Cashier of the bank at the relevant time. On assurance of opposite parties-2 and 3, the complainants deposited F.D.R No.12494 of Rs.24810/- (maturity date 10.06.2010), F.D.R No.12495 of Rs.25030/- (maturity date 10.06.2010), F.D.R No.12496 of Rs.23830/- (maturity date 09.06.2010), F.D.R No.12497 of Rs.21095/- (maturity date 09.06.2010), F.D.R No.12498 of Rs.6775/- (maturity date 10.03.2010), F.D.R No.12499 of Rs.25030/- (maturity date 10.06.2010) and F.D.R. No.12499 of Rs.25030/- (maturity date 10.06.2010) with the bank. They also opened two saving accounts in the bank i.e. Saving Account No.272 (balance Rs.34210/-) and Saving Account No.273 (balance Rs.34125/-). In December, 2008, the complainants came to know that V.C. Sindhwani and Manoj (Kumar (opposite parties-2 and 3) had embezzled the amounts of the depositors in the bank and were absconding and now Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak, Haryana was appointed as an Administrator/In-charge of the bank. Criminal complaint was also filed on which, the police had registered FIR against V.C. Sindhwani and Manoj (Kumar (opposite parties-2 and 3). The complainants approached the bank in January, 2009 and asked to refund their amount of FDRs and Saving Accounts. The Administrator returned Rs.9000/- on 14.01.2009 and assured that their entire money would be returned. Thereafter, the complainants visited several times to the bank and made oral and written requests for return of their money but nothing was done. Then, the complaint was filed on 20.08.2010.

4.      The petitioner filed his written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioner denied that he had ever approached the complainants for deposit in the bank or they handed over any money to him. The petitioner has no knowledge of the deposits of the complainants nor had any concern with it. Alleged FDRs were not issued by the petitioner in his personal capacity. The petitioner was also not a member, nor shareholder of opposite party No.1 Society. He was working as Cashier with opposite party No.1. A false case has been registered against him by the police under the pressure of the crowd. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak has been appointed as an Administrator/ In-charge, who had taken charge of the bank. If the complainants had any deposit in the bank then same can be withdrawn with the permission of the Administrator. The complainants cannot be treated as the consumer of the petitioner and he had been wrongly impleaded as the opposite party in the complaint. The complainants have remedy under The Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and the complaint was not maintainable. The complaint has been filed suppressing material facts and liable to be dismissed.

Other opposite parties also filed their written reply and contested it.

5.      District Forum, in its judgment dated 22.03.2017 found that the complainants proved their FDRs and Saving Accounts with the bank by filing copies of these papers. At the time of deposits, opposite parties including the petitioner, were holding responsible posts in the bank. As such, they were jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of FDRs and Saving Accounts. On these finding the complaint was allowed.

6.      The petitioner filed First Appeal No.509 of 2017 and opposite party No.2 filed First Appeal No.1263 of 2018 from the order of District Forum. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by State Commission, who by its judgment dated 14.03.2023 upheld the order of District Commission and dismissed the appeals. Hence this revision has been filed.

7.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. It is not disputed that the petitioner was posted as the Cashier in the bank and the FDRs were also issued by him. As far as plea of the petitioner that he has resigned in the year 2006 is concerned, this plea was not taken in the written statement. If the fund and assets of the bank is not matching with the record of the bank, then embezzlement of the fund is proved. If embezzlement of the fund of the bank was done, during the period, when the petitioner was also working as Cashier of the bank, then he cannot shirk his responsibility by saying that he was merely an employee. Both the fora below held that since opposite parties 2 & 3 were having control over the society, they were fully responsible for any act of mislead. Supreme Court in L.I.C. Vs. Escort Ltd. (1986) 1 SCC 264 and Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407, held that corporate veil can be lifted to examine the fraud or improper conduct of the person, controlling the company. The intent of piercing the veil must be such that would seek to remedy a wrong done by a person controlling the company.

8.      The complainants proved their FDRs and Saving Accounts with the bank by filing copies of these papers. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to receive the FDRs along with maturity benefits and also amounts of saving account. There is concurrent finding of fact of both the Fora below that opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 (petitioner herein) have direct control over all the functions of the society. The petitioner failed to prove anything contrary to the concurrent finding of fact, which otherwise also does not suffer from any illegality. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.