Haryana

Ambala

CC/32/2021

Rameshwar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

09 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	32 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	15.01.2021
Date of decision	:	09.05.2023

 

1. Rameshwar Sharma aged 68 years, son of Sh. Amar Nath, resident of House no.176/4 HUDA Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.
2. Sunita Sharma aged 65 years, wife of Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, resident of House no.176/4 HUDA Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.
3. Atul Sharma aged 32 years son of Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, resident of House no.176/4 HUDA Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala,

          ……. Complainants

                                                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:-     Complainant No.1 in person and on behalf of complainants                        No.2 and 3.

                   OPs No.1 to 5 and 8 already 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.                Complainants have 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.60,32,320/-, of the 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/- for cost of litigation.

                                           OR

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

2.             Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1 through its officials OPs No.2 to 6 had contacted the complainants and offered them to invest funds in their society with a promise they will provide better services and higher rate of interest and whenever the complainants need their funds then, the complainants can withdraw the same before maturity and that on maturity, the complainants will get the matured amount with interest, without any delay. Having faith upon the above said promise of the OPs, the complainants invested their money in the form of F.D.Rs, the details of the same are given as under-
   1. Fixed deposit bearing No.57549 on 05.03.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued in the name of Rameshwar Sharma and Sunita Sharma and its maturity value was Rs.1,11,000/- on 05.03.2019. This FD further renewed from 05.03.2019 to 05.03.2020 with maturity value Rs.1,25,440/-.
   2. Fixed deposit bearing No.49026 on 30.04.2019 for Rs.12,32,000/- issued in the name of Rameshwar Sharma and Sunita Sharma and maturity value was Rs.13,79,840/- on 30.04.2020.
   3. Fixed deposit bearing No.49027 on 30.04.2019 for Rs.18,48,000/- issued in the name of Sunita Sharma and Rameshwar Sharma and its maturity value was Rs.20,69,760/- on 30.04.2020.
   4. Fixed deposit bearing No.57550 on 05.03.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Sunita Sharma and Rameshwar Sharma and its maturity value was Rs.1,11,000/- on 05.03.2019. This FD further renewed from 05.03.2019 to 05.03.2020 with maturity value Rs.1,25,440/-.
   5. Fixed deposit bearing No.49028 on 30.04.2019 for Rs.82,000/- issued in the name of Atul Sharma and Rameshwar Sharma and its maturity value was Rs.94,840/- on 30.04.2020.
   6. Fixed deposit bearing No.49025 on 30.04.2019 for Rs.20,00,000/- issued in the name of Atul Sharma and Rameshwar Sharma and its maturity value was Rs.22,40,000/- on 30.04.2020.

 

3.           After the maturity date of the above said FDRs, the complainants 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 complainants 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 complainants 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 complainants 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 complainants are not the consumers 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 complainants with respect to business transactions i.e. sham transactions between the complainants 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 complainants have not come before this Commission with clean hands and have suppressed material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.6 never received any amount of the savings of the societies/persons including the complainants and has no concern with the dealings and acts and conducts between the complainants 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 complainants is not legally maintainable; the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainants are  estopped by its own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complainants have 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 complainants 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 complainants nor he is personally known to them. Rest of the averments of the complainants were denied by OP No.9 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
7.           Complainant no.1 tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants. 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. Learned counsel for the 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 complainant No.1, learned counsel for the OP No.6 and OP No.9 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
9.           Complainant No.1 on his behalf and on his behalf of complainants No.2 & 3 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 complainants have 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 reply 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 complainants nor he is personally known to them. 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 complainants fall under the definition of consumer or not. It may be stated here that not even a single evidence has been placed on record by the OPs to prove that the complainants by investing their amounts in the said FDRs are 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 complainants are not even 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 complainants  in the shape of FDRs with The Nationalised 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.	Name	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	Maturity amount
	57549 dt. 05.03.2018	Rameshwar Sharma & Sunita Sharma	100000.00	05.03.2020	125400.00
	57550 dt. 05.03.2018	Sunita Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	100000.00	05.03.2020	125440.00
	49025 dt. 30.04.2019	Atul Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	2000000.00	30.04.2020	2240000.00
	49026 dt. 30.04.2019	Rameshwar Sharma & Sunita Sharma	1232000.00	30.04.2020	1379840.00
	49027 dt. 30.04.2019	Sunita Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	1848000.00	30.04.2020	2069760.00
	49028 dt. 30.04.2019	Atul Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	82000.00	30.04.2020	91840.00
				Total	6032280

 

14.           As per the version of the complainants, the aforesaid amounts 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 complainants, yet, when nobody appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 to 5 and 8, 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 complainants in this complaint. Therefore, the assertions of the complainants 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 complainants.
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 respective complainants, alongwith interest @4% p.a. from the date of maturity, till realization.

Sr.No.	FDR No./dt.	Name	Amount deposited	Date of maturity	Maturity amount
	57549 dt. 05.03.2018	Rameshwar Sharma & Sunita Sharma	100000.00	05.03.2020	125400.00
	57550 dt. 05.03.2018	Sunita Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	100000.00	05.03.2020	125440.00
	49025 dt. 30.04.2019	Atul Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	2000000.00	30.04.2020	2240000.00
	49026 dt. 30.04.2019	Rameshwar Sharma & Sunita Sharma	1232000.00	30.04.2020	1379840.00
	49027 dt. 30.04.2019	Sunita Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	1848000.00	30.04.2020	2069760.00
	49028 dt. 30.04.2019	Atul Sharma & Rameshwar Sharma	82000.00	30.04.2020	91840.00
				Total	6032280

 (ii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) 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