Haryana

Ambala

CC/31/2021

Punjab National Bank & Other Nationalized Bank Employees - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nationalised Banks Employees and other Co Operative - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Chander

09 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	31 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	15.01.2021
Date of decision	:	09.05.2023

 

Punjab National Bank & other Nationalized Banks Employees Urban Salary Earners Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala through its President-Shri Harish Chander.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Nationalized Bank Employees and Other Public Co-operative T&C Society Ltd., Opp. SBI Main Branch, Chandigarh-Nahan Road, SBI Customer Service Point, Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala, Haryana, through its President Kuldeep Kumar.
2. Kuldeep Kumar, President, son of Sh. Krishan Lal, Resident of Village Dera Kharwan, Tehsil-Jagadari, District Yamunanagar, Haryana. (remained President from 20.05.2003 till date).
3. Sunil Kumar Dhiman, Vice President, son of Sh. Balbir Dev, resident of House no.759, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadari, Haryana. (remained Honorary Secretary from 15.02.1989 till 20.05.2003 and Vice President from 30.08.2018 till date)
4. Rasal Chand Bodhi, Treasurer, son of Sh. Molu Ram, resident of House No.849, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadari, Haryana. (remained President from 15.02.1989 to 20.05.2003 and Treasurer from 2010 till date)
5. Randhir Singh, Accounts Manager, son of Sh. Matu Ram, resident of Village Ambali, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana. (remained Accounts Manager from 2008 till date)
6. Vinod Sharma, Executive Member, son of Sh. Krishan lal Sharma, Resident of House No.92-B, E-Block, Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. (remained Vice President from 15.02.1989 to 20.05.2003 and Executive Member from 30.08.2018 till date)
7. Pawan Kumar, Executive Member, son of Sh. Jeet Ram, Resident of Village Batora, Post Office Laha, Tehsil Nariangarh, District Ambala, Haryana. (remained Executive Member from 30.09.2007 to 2012 and 30.08.2018 till date)
8. Som Nath, Executive Member, son of Sh. Chet Ram, Resident of Nahan-Chandigarh Road, Ward No.6, Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana. (remained President from 30.08.2018 till date)
9. Amit Kumar, Executive Member, son of Sh. Brij Bhushan R/o H. No. 326, Sanjay Vihar Colony, Near Gabha Hospital Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. (remained Executive Member from 30.09.2007 to 2012 and Executive Member from 30.08.2018 till date)

  ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Shri Munish Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                       OPs No.1 to 5 and 8 ex parte.

                   Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.6.

                   OP No.7 already given up.

                   OP No.9 in person.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.75,94,307/-, of the FDRs alongwith interest @ 24%.
2.           To pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of damages;
3. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental                      agony.
4. To pay Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.

                                  OR

Grant any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Punjab National Bank & other Nationalized Banks Employees Urban Salary Earners Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. is a registered society and its registration number is 131(N). Its primary object is to encourage thrift and saving among its members by accepting deposits and offering other suitable facilities as fully mentioned in the bye-laws of the society. OP No.1 is also running its work under the name and style of "The Nationalised Bank Employees and Other Public. Co-operative T&C Society Ltd. at Naraingarh through OPs No.2 to 9 and its registration number is 13. OP No.1 also used to receive the savings of societies/persons like the complainant. OP No.1 through its officials OPs No.2 to 6 had contacted the complainant and offer to invest funds in their society with a promise they will provide better services and higher rate of interest and whenever the complainant-society needs their funds then, the complainant can withdraw the same before maturity and that on maturity, the complainant will get the matured amount with interest, without any delay. Having faith upon the above said promise of the OPs, the complainant-Society had deposited its savings in the form of F.D.Rs, the details of the same are given as under-

1. Fixed deposit bearing No.54156 on 11.7.2013 for Rs.9,95,718/- and maturity value was Rs. 11,25,160/- on 11.7.2014 and its old FDR No. was 52678. This FD further renewed from 11.7.2014 to 11.07.2015 with maturity value Rs.12,71,430/- and it further renewed from 11.7.2015 to 11.07.2016 with maturity value Rs.14,24,001/- and further renewed from 11.7.2016 to 11.07.2017 with maturity value Rs.15,94,880/- and further renewed from 11.7.2017 to 11.07.2018 with maturity value Rs.17,70,318/- and lastly the same was renewed on 11.7.2018 to 11.07.2019 with maturity value of Rs.19,65,050/-.
2. Fixed deposit bearing No.54155 on 1.8.2013 for Rs.6,13,313/- and maturity value was Rs.6,93,045/- on 1.8.2014 and its old FDR No. was 52679. This FD further renewed from 1.8.2014 to 01.08.2015 with maturity value Rs.7,83,140/- and it further renewed from 1.8.2015 to 01.08.2016 with maturity value Rs.8,77,116/- and further renewed from 1.8.2016 to 01.08.2017 with maturity value Rs.9,82,370/- and further renewed from 1.8.2017 to 01.08.2018 with maturity value Rs. 10,90,430/- and lastly the same was renewed on 1.8.2018 to 01.08.2019 with maturity value of Rs.12,10,377/-.
3. Fixed deposit bearing No.54152 on 19.12.2013 for Rs.12,26,630/- and maturity value was Rs.13,86,091/- on 19.12.2014 and its old FDR No. was 52682. This FD further renewed from 19.12.2014 to 19.12.2015 with maturity value Rs.15,66,282/- and it further renewed from 19.12.2015 to 19.12.2016 with maturity value Rs.17,54,235/- and further renewed from 19.12.2016 to 19.12.2017 with maturity value Rs.19,64,748/- and further renewed from 19.12.2017 to 19.12.2018 with maturity value Rs.21,80,860/- and lastly the same was renewed on 19.12.2018 to 19.12.2019 with maturity value of Rs.24,20,750/-.
4. Fixed deposit bearing No.55591 on 31.01.2015 for Rs.11,44,102/- and maturity value was Rs.12,81,344/- on 31.01.2016 and its old FDR No. was 54151. This FD further renewed from 31.01.2016 to 31.01.2017 with maturity value Rs.14,47,975/- and further renewed from 31.01.2017 to 31.01.2018 with maturity value Rs.16,21,732/- and further renewed from 31.01.2018 to 31.01.2019 with maturity value Rs.18,00,120/- and lastly the same was renewed on 31.01.2019 to 31.01.2020 with maturity value of Rs.19,98,130/-.

 

3.           After the maturity date of the above said FDRs, the complainant had visited the office of the OPs for a number of times to get the maturity amount but they always delayed the payment on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that there are number of persons who had deposited their hard earned money with OP No.1 vide different FDRs, had also approached OP No.1 for refund, but the OPs did not refund their amount. It reflects that the OPs had defrauded the complainant as well as a hundreds of other depositors. Therefore, an FIR has been lodged against the OP No.1 to 6. The OPs are not abiding by their promise to pay the amount to the complainant on maturity date of the above said FDRs. Hence the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 to 5, & 8 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 26.03.2021 and 15.02.2022 respectively.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.6 appeared and filed written version  wherein he raised preliminary objection to the effect that the complainant is not the consumer of O.P. No.6 and does not fall within the definition of the "Consumer" as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act; the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law; no specific and justified allegations with regard to negligence or deficiency in providing services, has been made by the complainant against O.P. No.6;  the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law; the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with respect to business transactions i.e. sham transactions between the complainant and O.P. No.1 only;  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present compliant. the dispute in the present complaint is civil in nature and requires detailed evidence for proper adjudication; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against O.P. No.6;  the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts; the present complaint is even not maintainable on account of fact that the complainant cannot be a consumer under the present act since the society of the complainant is made to earn commercial benefits from the urban salary earners of the employees of the complainant ; the present complaint is not maintainable on account of the fact that no 'proper verified resolution' as per the act and law of the society has been annexed with the complaint; the complainant is not a registered society/entity as per law to maintain its credibility and to file the present complaint against the OPs/ O.P. No.6 etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.6 never received any amount of the savings of the societies/persons including the complainant and has no concern with the dealings and acts and conducts between the complainant and O.P. No.1. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.6 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
6.           Upon notice, OP No.9 appeared and filed written version  wherein he raised preliminary objection to the effect that the present complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant is  estopped by its own act and conduct to file the present complaint; Shri Harish Chander is not competent to file and institute the present complaint against OP No.9 because OP No.9 has nothing to do with The Nationalized Bank Employees and other Public Co-operative T&C Society Ltd at Naraingarh as alleged; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands; the true facts are that OP No.9 has no concern with the alleged society etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.9 is living in his mother's house which is owned and possessed by her by obtaining loan from Chola Mandlam Bank amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- which is still outstanding. After obtaining the loan, OP No.9 requested his uncle Shri Vinod Sharma to help him in raising construction over the said plot purchased by his mother. On the request made by OP No.9 to Shri Vinod Sharma, Executive Member of the Society, he arranged an amount Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of loan from the said Society i.e. T&C Society. Later on OP No.9 cleared the said loan in installments and no amount is due against it. OP No.9 was working as a Lab attendant in SD Model School, Jagadhri for the period from 2006 to 2015 on a monthly salary of Rs.4000/-. In addition to this OP No.9 was taking part in Jagran and Kirtan. Now, OP No.9 is running a shop of general merchant in the rented shop. OP No.9 has already made statement in this regard firstly to Crime Branch Ambala and then to State Crime Branch Panchkula. In this way the OP No.9 has no concern with the alleged society and OP No.9 even not seen the office of the T&C Society. OP No.9 never remained member of the said Society and has never met with complainant nor is he personally known to it. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.9 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-1 alongwith documents as Annexure C-2 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.6 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OP No.6 have been closed by the order of this Commission on 27.03.2023. OP No.9 tendered his own affidavit as Annexure OP-9/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-9/1 to OP-9/4 and closed evidence on his behalf.
8.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the OP No.6 and OP No.9 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
9.           Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that by not making payment of the FDRs in question, after expiry of maturity dates thereof, the OPs are deficient in providing service, thereby, causing financial loss and inconvenience.
10.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.6 while reiterating the objections taken his written reply submitted that the complainant has failed to prove there is any relationship with OP No.6 and as such, any transaction done with OP No.1 qua the FDRs in question has no relation whatsoever with OP No.6.
11.           OP No.9 also while reiterating the objections taken his written version has submitted that OP No.9 has been working as Lab attendant in SD Model School since 2006 to 2015 on a monthly salary of Rs.4000/- only. He further submitted that in addition to this OP No.9 was taking part in Jagran and Kirtan and running a shop of general merchant in the rent shop. He further submitted that OP No.9 never remained member of the said Society and has never met with complainant nor he is personally known to it. He further submitted that on the request made by OP No.9 to Shri Vinod Sharma, Executive Member of the Society, he arranged an amount Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of loan from the said Society i.e. T&C Society, which has been cleared by him. 
12.           The first question that falls for consideration is, as to whether complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not. It may be stated here that admittedly the complainant- Punjab National Bank & other Nationalized Banks Employees Urban Salary Earners Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd.  is a registered society and its primary object is to encourage thrift and saving among its members by accepting deposits and offering other suitable facilities as fully mentioned in the bye-laws of the society. Not even a single evidence has been placed on record by the OPs to prove that the complainant is earning huge profits out of the said FDRs. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Civil Appeal No (S). 5352­5353 of 2007, National  Insurance  Co.  Ltd. Vs  Harsolia Motors And Others, Decided On April 13, 2023. has clearly held that even a commercial enterprise (though in the present case complainant is not a commercial enterprise even) can raise consumer disputes under the Act in relation to any goods purchased or services availed which are not for commercial purposes and that to decide whether it is for "commercial purpose" it has to be seen if the goods or the services had a close and direct nexus with the profit generation. Thus, in the present case also, in  the absence of any evidence in support of the allegations leveled by the OP No.6 and 7, mere bald objection taken by them did not merit acceptance is accordingly rejected. 
13.           It is coming out from the record that the following amounts were invested by the complainant  in the shape of FDRs with The Nationalized Bank Employees And Other Public Co- operative T&C Society Ltd. which were renewed from time to time and were matured as under:- 

Sr.No.	FDR No./dt.	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	Maturity amount	Ann
	55591 dt. 26.03.2015	1144102.00	31.01.2020	1998130.00	C-3
	54152 dt. 10.03.2014	1226630.00	19.12.2019	2420750.00	C-4
	54155 dt. 10.03.2014	613313.00	01.08.2019	1210377.00	C-5
	54156 dt. 10.03.2014	995718.00	11.07.2019	1965050.00	C-6
			Total	7594307

14.           Complainant has pleaded that the maturity amount of the FDRs, due before the date filing of this complaint, have not been paid by the OPs and all efforts to recover the said amount has gone in the air.  As stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OPs No.1 to 5 and 8 including OPs No.6 and 9, seeking their version of the cases filed by the complainant, yet, when nobody appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 to 5 and 8, as such, they were proceeded ex-parte, in the above stated manner. It may be stated here that the OP No.6 in his written version has stated that he is not responsible in any manner, in the matter, but to prove the same no document has been tendered on record as evidence by him. Thus the averment made by the OP No.6 in his written version is not sustainable in the eyes of law.   Only, OP No.9 has been able to prove by placing on record a certificate of S.D. Model School, Jagadhri, Haryana that he was working as Lab Attendant therein for the period from 2006 to February 2015. Non appearance of OPs No.1 to 5 and 8 and non-filing of any evidence by the OP No.6 in support of his version, shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant in this complaint. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant made in its complaint went unrebutted & uncontroverted. As such, we are of the considered opinion that except OP No.9 and OP No.7 who had been given up by the complainant, all the remaining OPs i.e. OPs No.1 to 6 and 8 are deficient in providing service and negligent in not making payment of maturity of FDRs amount to the complainant. Complainant is thus entitled to get the maturity amount of the abovesaid FDRs alongwith interest. However, complainant being a juristic person is not entitled to get any compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as sought for.  
15.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.7 & 9 and allow the same against OPs No.1 to 6 & 8.  Therefore, OPs No.1 to 6 and 8 jointly and severally are directed as under:-

 

1. To pay the maturity amount in respect of the following FDRs to the complainant alongwith interest @4% p.a. from the date of maturity, till realization.

Sr.No.	FDR No./dt.	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	Maturity amount	Ann
	55591 dt. 26.03.2015	1144102.00	31.01.2020	1998130.00	C-3
	54152 dt. 10.03.2014	1226630.00	19.12.2019	2420750.00	C-4
	54155 dt. 10.03.2014	613313.00	01.08.2019	1210377.00	C-5
	54156 dt. 10.03.2014	995718.00	11.07.2019	1965050.00	C-6
			Total	75,94,307

2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs No.1 to 6 & 8 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay interest @6% p.a. on the awarded amount besides cost of litigation, from the date of default till realization.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith, free of costs as permissible under rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 09.05.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President