Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/185/2024

SURJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE UNION COOPERATIVE N.A.T.C. SOCIETY LTD THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/185/2024
Date of Institution	:	01.04.2024
Date of Decision	:	03/12/2024

1.     Surjit Singh S/o Kewal Singh,

2.     Harjinder Kaur W/o Surjit Singh,

3.     Jasvir Singh S/o Surjit Singh,

4.     Kulwinder Singh S/o Surjit Singh, all residents of House No. 1403-B, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh, Pin code- 160036.

….Complainants

Versus

1.     The Union Cooperative N.A.T.C. Society Ltd., through its president/Secretary (Regd. Under Co-operative Societies Act, Regn. No. 575 dated 24.04.2001) 286/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh (U.T.) 160047

2.     Regional Manager, Union Bank of India. Regional Office, Bank Square, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

3.     Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank, Regional office, Bank Square, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

4.     Registrar, Co-operative societies, UT, Chandigarh Govt. Press Building Sector 18, Chandigarh.

5.     Administrator of the Union cooperative N.A.T.C. Society Ltd.. Chandigarh. Regd. Office 286/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, Office of Joint Registrar, Co-operative societies, U.T. Chandigarh, Govt, Building, Sector 18, Chandigarh.

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Adv.  Proxy for Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
		Complaint against OPs No.2 to 5 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.10.2024. OPs No.1 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.         The present consumer complaint has been filed by complainants against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-    
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant No.1 is working as driver in the Punjab Mandi Board on regular basis.  The complainant No. 2 is wife of complainant No.1 whereas complainant No.3 & 4 are his children. The copies of the aadhar card of the complainants are Annexures C-1 to C-4. In the year 2009, when complainant No.1 was posted in the Office of Punjab Mandi Board, Sector-17, Chandigarh and the Union Bank of India was having its Branch in the premises of Punjab Mandi Board, Sector-17, Chandigarh, the complainant No.1 including other employees of the Punjab Mandi Board were allured by some employees of Union Bank of India as well as Allahabad Bank, Sector-17-B Branch, Chandigarh by stating that they have constituted two Societies namely Union Bank of India approved societies namely "The Union Cooperative N.A.T.C. Society Ltd., Chandigarh, Regd. No. 575 dated 24.04.2001" and "The Union Bank and Govt. Employees Cooperative U.S.E. T&C Society Ltd., Chandigarh, Regd. No. 541 dated 14.05.1996" which are duly registered Societies under the UT Administration under the provisions of "Co-operatives Societies Act. The complainant and other employees were told that if they invest their hard earned money with OPs No.1 to 3, they will pay the higher rate of interest on the fixed deposits in comparison to rate of interest being given by other banks. On the aforesaid assurances, the complainants invested the hard-earned money to secure future of his family including children in various schemes floated by OP No.1 as per the details given below-

i.      FDR Account No. 1065 dated 26.10.2009 of Rs.20,000/- in the name of Surjeet Singh

ii.     FDR Account No. 1068 dated 31.10.2009 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Surjeet Singh.

iii.    FDR Account No. 1028 dated 31.05.2010 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Surjeet Singh.

iv.    FDR Account No. 1135 dated 08.07.2010 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Surjeet Singh & Harjinder Kaur.

v.     FDR Account No. 1136 dated 08.07.2010 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Harjinder Kaur & Surjeet Singh.

vi.    FDR Account No. 1150 dated 13.08.2010 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Harjinder Kaur & Surjeet Singh.

vii.   FDR Account No. 1149 dated 13.08.2010 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Surjeet Singh & Harjinder Kaur.

viii. FDR Account No. 1531 dated 08.09.2010 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Jasvir Singh & Surjeet Singh.

ix.    FDR Account No. 1409 dated 17.03.2011 of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Kulwinder Singh & Surjeet Singh.

x.     FDR Account No. 1545 dated 06.10.2010 of Rs.50,000/- in the name of Jasvir Singh & Surjeet Singh.

The copies of FDRs are Annexures C-5 to C-14.

2. On the maturity date, when the complainants approached the OPs for refund of maturity amount, they have failed to return the same and rather put off the matter on one pretext or the other. However, the OPs assured the complainants that the maturity amount will be directly transferred into their Bank accounts initially given to them but the same was never done. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
3. OP No.1 & 5 was properly served and when they did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 30.05.2024.
4. Though OPs No.2, 3 and 5 resisted the complaint by filing their separate written versions but since the complainants have withdrawn the complaint against Ops No.2 to 5, the same is not required to be discussed.

2.         In order to prove his claims the complainants have tendered/proved the evidence by way of the affidavit and supporting documents.
3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and also gone through the file carefully including written submissions. 
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainants that the complainant No.1 along with his family members deposited/invested the amount of ₹2.70 lakhs with OP No.1 vide different FDRs, as is also evident from the copies of Annexures C-5 to C-14 and the said amount has not been refunded till date even after the maturity of the same, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainants are entitled for the maturity amount alongwith interest and compensation as prayed for.

1. Perusal of the FDRs (Annexures C-5 to C-14) clearly indicates that the complainants have deposited/invested ₹2.70 lakhs through different FDRs with OP No.1.
2. Learned Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment reported in II (2012) CPJ 531 (NC) title as Kiran Krishna Agro Tech. Ltd. Vs. P.V. Shantha Kumari wherein it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission as under:—

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) — Banking and Financial Institutions Services — Fixed Deposit Scheme — Non-payment of maturity value — District Forum dismissed complaint — State Commission allowed appeal — Hence revision — Respondent had paid sum of Rs. 2 lakh to petitioner for obtaining fixed deposit receipts — Petitioner had issued fixed deposit receipt Nos. 2332 and 2333 for amount of Rs. 1 lakh each with maturity value of Rs. 2 lakh to respondent — Petitioner has failed to pay maturity value of FDRs which amounts to deficiency in service — State Commission rightly directed to petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 4,00,000 along with interest”.

3. In the case in hand, as it stands proved that despite requests of the complainants the maturity amounts of the FDRs have not been refunded to them, the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.1 is liable to refund the maturity amounts alongwith interest and compensation, especially when the entire case set up by the complainants in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by OP No.1
   2. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainants have successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

4.         In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1 directed as under :-

1. to pay to the complainants maturity amounts of the FDRs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of its maturity, till its realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3. to pay ₹10,000/-  to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5.         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6.         Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/12/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member