The complainant Paramjit Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against opposite parties The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties) .
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of village Poohli. In order to get interest, he wanted to invest his money in the shape of FDR.
It is alleged that opposite parties are registered society under the Societies Act vide registration No.264 dated 19.1.1928. It is a reputed society. Punjab Government has honoured the secretary of opposite parties on 15.8.2013. Opposite parties in the financial year 2012-13 took the first position in Nabard. As such, they are working under Punjab Government. The opposite parties are assuring their customers that their money is safe with them and Punjab Government will be responsible for the entire amount payable to their customers.
It is further alleged that as per Section 38 and condition Nos.13 and 14 of Bye Laws, opposite parties shall be bound to pay the interest upon term deposit amount to the customers. As per complainant, he has deposited Rs.15,000/- in the shape of FDR and Rs. 16,530/- in Saving Account with the opposite parties
It is further alleged that on 25-9-2019, the complainant approached opposite parties for payment of amounts and to withdraw amount of FDR and saving account, but they have been postponing the matter on one or other pretext. It was told to the complainant that opposite parties have no sufficient fund in the society to pay the amount. Due to non-payment of amount of FDR alongwith upto date interest, the complainant has been caused mental tension, agony, pains and financial loss. Opposite parties have also failed to provide the services and rather deficient in providing the services.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to make payment of FDR as well as amount of saving account with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. He has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 2.
Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite party No. 1 has raised preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint as he is not a member of opposite party No.1. That the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred U/s 82 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as the complainant has not availed the efficacious remedy available with him before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. He has not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 and 80 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act before filing the complaint. He has not approached this Commission with clean hands. He has intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Commission. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complaint does not fall within the purview of Section 12 (35) of 'Act'. The complicated and intricate questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, which require elaborate oral and documentary evidence. The witnesses are also required to be cross-examined. It is not possible before this Commission through summary procedure. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.1 is a society, but all other averments have been denied. It is pleaded that averments are vague in nature. It is also denied for want of knowledge that the complainant has deposited the amount in Saving Account. Opposite party No. 1 has also reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3).
To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No. 1 did not produce any evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.
Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant has proved that he has deposited amount in the shape of FDR and in the saving account. Opposite party No. 1 has denied this fact mainly for want of knowledge. The complainant has produced photocopy of Long Term Deposit Receipt and Pass Book (Ex.C-2 & Ex. C-3). It is also admitted that this amount is payable to the complainant, but the society is unable to pay amount for want of funds and amount will be paid when opposite parties will be having sufficient funds. There is no rebuttal to this documentary evidence. Therefore, the documentary evidence proves the case of the complainant.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that opposite party No. 1 has referred Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act to plead that the jurisdiction of the Commission is barred. Consumers are provided additional remedy U/s 3 of 'Act'. Therefore, jurisdiction of this Commission is not barred.
To support these contentions, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon:-
i) 2004 AIR (SC) 448 Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others.
ii) 2014 (78) RCR (Civil) 113 Siddarth Dalit Motor Vahatuk Co-op. Society Vs. Sanjay Dadu Sasane and Anr.
iii) 2012 (1) CLT 199 Anil Pahwa Vs. Baldeep Singh & Other.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the complainant has not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 & 80 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. He has claimed refund of amount. He has not produced any evidence to prove the deposit of amount. Therefore, he does not fall within the purview of U/s 35 of 'Act'.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 that the secretary of opposite party No.1 committed fraud with the society and he has embezzled lakhs of rupees of the society. The Society has already initiated the proceedings against the secretary. The complainant has no right to seek refund through the process of this Commission. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and it be dismissed with cost.
We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that as per Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred. The matter was examined by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Anil Pahwa Vs. Baldeep Singh (Supra) and it was observed that Section 3 of 'Act' confers additional remedy on the Consumer Commission. The matter of refund or deposits where the amount has not been refunded by Co-operative Society in respect of provisions under the Co-operative Society Act, Consumer Commission would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others (Supra), has observed that the remedy of Consumer Commission is in addition and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts. It was rather further observed that the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission to decide the dispute is not barred because of even the remedy of arbitration provided under the Co-operative Societies Act. In the case of Siddarth Dalit Motor Vahatuk Co-op. Society (Supra) similar objections of jurisdiction of this Commission was raised by society. Hon'ble State Commission, Maharashtra held that objection is not tenable.
Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well Hon'ble National Commission, jurisdiction of this Commission is not barred and complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainant has pleaded that he has deposited Rs. 15,000/- in the shape of FDR and Rs. 16,530/- in Saving Account. To prove this fact, he has placed on record photocopy of Long Term Deposit (Ex. C-2) and Pass Book (Ex.C-3). As per Ex. C-2 FDR amount is Rs. 15,000/- with maturity value of Rs. 16,425/- and due date was 3-1-2016 and according to Ex. C-3 Rs. 16,530/- are lying in the saving account of the complainant and till date said amounts have not been refunded to him without any fault on his part. Opposite parties have not produced any rebuttal evidence to contradict this evidence of the complainant. In the written version also, opposite parties have given evasive reply. The opposite parties were duty bound to make the payment of hard earned amount lying in saving account of complainant as well as amount of FDR, in time. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the following amounts to complainant with interest admissible to these amounts till date of payment :-
FDR No.
| Date
| Amount & Due date
|
1434
| 03/01/15
| Rs.16,425/- (3-01-16)
|
Saving A/c No.
| Date
| Amount
|
1928
| -
| Rs.16,530/-
|
It is made clear that since the complaint has been filed through Secretary and Registrar Co-operative Society, these authorities will not be personally liable for making payment. The payment is to be made from the account/assets of the society i.e. The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited.
The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced:-
26-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
