DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.195 of 12-07-2017

Decided on 09-03-2018

1.Barjinder Singh aged about 30 years S/o Gurdarshan Singh;

2.Gurdarshan Singh aged about 66 years S/o Niranjan Singh;

Both R/o H.No.19107, St.No.10, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.

........Complainants

Versus

1.The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Poohli District Bathinda, through its Secretary.

2. The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited, Poohli District Bathinda, through its President. (Deleted)

3.Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bathinda. (Deleted)

4.Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bathinda. (Deleted)

5.The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh. (Deleted)

6.Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainants: Sh.Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Harraj Singh, Advocate.

Opposite party Nos.2 to 6: Deleted.

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainants Barjinder Singh and Gurdarshan Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that they are having account Nos.2743 and 2882 with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is registered society under the Cooperative Societies Act vide registration No.264 dated 19.1.1928 and reputed society. The Punjab Government has honored the secretary of opposite parties on 15.8.2013. Opposite parties in the financial year 2012-13 also took first position Nabard, as such, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are working under the Punjab Government. Opposite parties assured their customers that their money is safe with them and Punjab Government is responsible for the entire amount payable to their customers.

3. It is alleged that as per section 38 and condition Nos.13 and 14 of the Bye Laws of opposite parties, opposite parties Nos.3, 4 and 5 shall be bound to pay the interest and term deposit amount to the customers. As per complainants, they have also deposited the amount with opposite parties i.e The Poohli Multipurpose Co-operative Agri. Service Society Limited in the shape of FDRs:-

   FDR No.	Date	Maturity Date	Amount
   1433	23/8/14	22/8/15	Rs.3,34,933/-
   	Renewal Date		Renewal Amount
   	25/8/2015	22/8/2016	Rs.4,18,990/-
   FDR No.	Date	Maturity Date	Amount
   1434	23/8/14	22/8/15	Rs.3,34,933/-
   	Renewal Date		Renewal Amount
   	25/8/2015	22/8/2016	Rs.4,18,990/-

    

4. It is further alleged that in the first week of September 2016, the complainants approached opposite parties for payment of the amount, but they have been postponing the matter on one or other pretext. It was told that they have not sufficient fund in the society to pay the due amount with interest. The complainants have also written the letter/notice on 2.9.2016, but opposite parties did not give any reply or release the payment.

5. It is further alleged that due to non payment of FDRs, opposite parties failed to provide services whereas they are service oriented society and responsible to provide best services to their customer and make the payment of deposit of their customers in time.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to release the payment of FDRs i.e. Rs.8,37,990/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. They have also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

6. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainants, name of opposite party Nos.2 to 6 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

7. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In the separate written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complainants have no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint as they are not its member. The jurisdiction of this Forum is barred U/s 82 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as the complainants have not availed the efficacious remedy available with them before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. They have not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 and 80 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act before filing the complaint. They have not approached this Forum with clean hands. They have intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As such, they are not entitled to any relief from this Forum. 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 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 Forum through summary procedure. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainants. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with special costs U/s 26 of 'Act'.

8. On merits, it is admitted that opposite party No.1 is a society, but it is further mentioned that Punjab Government has no concern with the business of opposite party No.1. It never claimed that the Punjab Government is responsible in any manner. All other averments of the complainants are denied. It is also denied for want of knowledge that the complainants have deposited the amount with FDRs. Opposite party No.1 has also reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were asked to produce evidence.

10. In support of their claim, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of Barjinder Singh dated 8.11.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of FDR, (Ex.C2); photocopy of renewal of FDR, (Ex.C3); photocopy of FDR, (Ex.C4); photocopy of renewal of FDR, (Ex.C5); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence.

11. To rebut the claim of the complainants, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Major Singh dated 8.2.2018, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

13. Learned counsel for complainants has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainants that the complainants have produced photocopy of long term deposit receipts, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5). These are signed by the cashier and secretary of the society. It is also admitted that the FDRs amount is payable to the complainants, 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 complainants.

14. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainants that opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections regarding jurisdiction of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 has also referred Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act to plead that the jurisdiction of the Courts is barred. Consumers are provided additional remedy U/s 3 of 'Act'. Therefore, jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred.

    To support these contentions, learned counsel for complainants 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.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that the complainants have not served opposite parties with notice U/s 79 & 80 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, they do not fall within the purview of U/s 12 of 'Act'. They have no right to seek refund through the process of this Forum. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and it be dismissed with cost.

16. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainants.

17. Opposite party No.1 is co-operative society. Opposite party No.1 has also pleaded that as per Section 82 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, jurisdiction of this Forum 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 Forum. 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 Forum would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

    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 Forum is in addition and not in derogation to remedy under other Acts. It was rather further observed that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora 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 Forum 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 as Hon'ble National Commission, jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred and complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

18. Now, coming to the main controversy. The complainants have produced copy of FDRs, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5). It proves that sum of Rs.3,34,933/- is deposited by the complainants in the shape of FDR and its renewal amount becomes Rs.4,18,990/- and sum of Rs.3,34,933/- is deposited by the complainants in the shape of FDR and its renewal amount becomes Rs.4,18,990/- Opposite party No.1 has not produced any rebuttal evidence to contradict this evidence of the complainants. In the written version also, they have given evasive reply.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the following renewal amount of FDRs alongwith interest admissible to this amount as FDRs till date of payment:-

20. It is made clear that since the complaint has been filed through Secretary. This authority 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.

21. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

22. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    09-03-2018

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member