State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit , ... vs Baldau Sahu on 18 October, 2023
Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
APPEAL No.- FA/23/109
Date of Institution: 02/08/2023
Date of Final Hearing: 12/10/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 18/10/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Birkoni,
Vill. & P.O. Birkoni, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.1
2. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Branch- Tumgaon,
Vill. & P.O. Tumgaon, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.2
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant No.3
All Through: Shri Moinuddin Qureshi, Advocate
Vs.
Pannalal Sahu, S/o. Shri Pyarilal Sahu,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
APPEAL No.- FA/23/110
Date of Institution: 02/08/2023
Date of Final Hearing: 12/10/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 18/10/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Birkoni,
Vill. & P.O. Birkoni, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.1
2. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Branch- Tumgaon,
Vill. & P.O. Tumgaon, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.2
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant No.3
All Through: Shri Moinuddin Qureshi, Advocate
Vs.
Laxman Sahu, S/o. Shri Nathuram Sahu,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
APPEAL No.- FA/23/111
Date of Institution: 02/08/2023
Date of Final Hearing: 12/10/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 18/10/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Birkoni,
Vill. & P.O. Birkoni, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.1
All appeals dismissed. Page 1 of 8
Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023
2. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Branch- Tumgaon,
Vill. & P.O. Tumgaon, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.2
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant No.3
All Through: Shri Moinuddin Qureshi, Advocate
Vs.
Madan Patel, S/o. Shri Chaitu Patel,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
APPEAL No.- FA/23/112
Date of Institution: 02/08/2023
Date of Final Hearing: 12/10/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 18/10/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Birkoni,
Vill. & P.O. Birkoni, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.1
2. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Branch- Tumgaon,
Vill. & P.O. Tumgaon, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant No.2
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant No.3
All Through: Shri Moinuddin Qureshi, Advocate
Vs.
Baldau Sahu, S/o. Shri Karan Sahu,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri Moinuddin Qureshi, Advocate for the Appellants in call cases.
Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate for the respondent in all cases.
JUDGEMENT
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of Appeal Nos.FA/23/109, FA/23/110, FA/23/111 & FA/23/112 filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) arising out of the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mahasamund (hereinafter called "District Commission" for short). However all these appeals involve same question of law and facts but the deposited amount in the account, the amount and date of award, complaint case All appeals dismissed. Page 2 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 number etc. are different and for the purpose of convenience they are being mentioned herein below : -
Awarded Amount (Rs.) Deposited Interest Amount in w.e.f. the Date of Balance Compensation Sr. Appeal Complaint Savings date of Cost of Impugned Deposited for Mental No. No. Case No. Bank complaint Litigation Order Amount harassment Account till the (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) date of payment.
1 FA/23/109 37/2018 14.06.2023 7,30,770/- 7,20,964/- @ 6.0% 4,000/- 3,000/- 2 FA/23/110 38/2018 14.06.2023 47,842/- 47,842/- @ 6.0% 4,000/- 3,000/- 3 FA/23/111 39/2018 14.06.2023 65,791/- 64,274/- @ 6.0% 4,000/- 3,000/- 4 FA/23/112 40/2018 14.06.2023 93,965/- 93,965/- @ 6.0% 4,000/- 3,000/-
Feeling aggrieved the opposite parties/appellants, who are common in all the cases, have challenged the impugned order by way of these appeals. For the purpose of convenience the facts of appeal No.FA/23/109 are being considered in this common order.
2. Undisputedly, the complainant/ respondent was having an savings bank account vide account No.1136 with the opposite party No.1/ appellant No.1 who is controlled by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 / appellant Nos.2 & 3. In the said savings bank account from time to time amounts were being deposited and 31.03.2012 Rs.7,30,770/- (Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy) was the balance in the said account. As per case of the complainant / respondent when he got updated his passbook he came to know that there was mass irregularities committed by the employees and officers of the opposite parties/ appellants in the amount of the depositors, with regard to which crime was also lodged. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in its order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.695/2013 ordered the opposite party Nos.2 & 3/ appellant Nos.2 & 3 to pay the amount of depositors within two months but even then the amount of the complainant / respondent was not paid, alleging which as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/ appellants complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking directions to the opposite parties/ All appeals dismissed. Page 3 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 appellants for payment of entire deposit balance amount of Rs.7,30,770/- (Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy) along with interest at the prevailing rate of interest till the date of payment, cost of litigation and any other relief, which the learned District Commission deems fit.
3. The opposite parties/ appellants in their joint written version except the admitted facts denied the allegations of deficiency in service leveled against them. It was specifically denied that an amount of Rs.7,30,770/- (Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy) was the balance as on 31.03.2012 in the savings bank account of the complainant/respondent and he suffered loss of that amount. As on 11.11.2011 only Rs.9,806/- (Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Six) was the balance in the account of the complainant / respondent. It was further averred that as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh payment of maximum amount of Rs.30,000/- under Savings Guarantee Scheme rules was to be made to the depositors and accordingly an amount of Rs.9,806/- (Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Six) was to be paid to the complainant/ respondent in his bank account but for want of his application the same could not be paid to him. Defence of the complaint being barred by limitation was also taken and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. Learned District Commission considering the rival contentions of the parties and the judgement dated 28.06.2013 of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court passed in Writ Petition No.695/2013 held the act of the opposite parties/ appellants as deficiency in service, partly allowed the complaint and passed directions as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by the parties, perused the record of the District Commission as well as the written arguments filed by the complainant/ respondent.
All appeals dismissed. Page 4 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023
6. In the grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo the grounds taken by the appellants/ opposite parties to challenge the impugned order is with regard to the limitation i.e. the date of cause of action was not tested properly, application filed by the respondent/ complainant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also not considered properly and overlooking the facts order of condonation of delay was passed. The documents filed by the appellants/ opposite parties were not perused.
7. Regarding the question of limitation the respondent / complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint in paragraph No.6 that the cause of action arose from the date of receipt of letter dated 10.03.2016 and continued thereafter, but copy of said letter has not been brought on record. In all the cases from the record it appears that out of the deposited amount the appellants/ opposite parties, as per their written statement supported by affidavit, were ready to pay maximum Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) to the depositors and except Appeal No.FA/23/109 in all the cases some amount has been paid on 19.12.2018. In Appeal No.FA/23/109 as per written version of the appellants/ opposite parties the amount could not paid for want of application from the respondent / complainant to that effect. But at the same time it is also true that in all the cases the respondent / complainant were continuously making efforts for getting their amount back along with interest from the appellants / opposite parties, which is also evident from the copy of judgements of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Contempt No.158 of 2014, Contempt No.159 of 2014, Contempt No.162 of 2014, Contempt No.163 of 2014, Contempt No.164 of 2014, Contempt No.173 of 2014, Contempt No.174 of 2014 and Contempt No.175 of 2014 disposed off vide common order dated 11.04.2017 copy of which is available in the record of the District Commission at page No.39. In view of judgement dated 11.04.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court as above, which clearly shows that the respondent / complainant was All appeals dismissed. Page 5 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 making his continuous efforts for getting his money back and the fact that the balance amount in the savings bank account and its interest is still remained deposited with the appellants / opposite parties, we are of the considered view that the respondent / complainant was having continuing cause of action, till the amount is not disbursed to him, for filing the consumer complaint against the appellants/ opposite parties. Set of these four appeals were heard together with the Appeal Nos.FA/23/78, FA/23/79, FA/23/80 & FA/23/81, having involved the same question of law and facts, filed by the same appellants / opposite parties and are being decided today on 18.10.2023 by separate common order. In those appeals also the abovementioned judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh were referred by the appellants/ opposite parties.
8. So far as other grounds of appeal is concerned looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to sustain the allegations of the appellants / opposite parties that the learned District Commission has missed sight of any document or has overlooked the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. In fact in the impugned order learned District Commission has considered the judgement dated 28.06.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition No.695/2013 and Cont. No.158 of 2014 and held that the appellants/ opposite parties have failed to furnish any information as to whether the said order was complied with or not. In the judgement dated 28.06.2013 in Writ Petition (C) Nos.695/2013, 696/2013, 668/2013, 669/2013, 670/2013, 671/2013, 698/2013, 699/2013, 697/2013, 694/2013 the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in paragraph No.3 has mentioned that at the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ appellants herein submitted that the Samiti i.e. appellant No.1/ opposite party No.1 had decided to take loan from the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Bank i.e. appellants Nos.2 & 3/ opposite party Nos.2 & 3 for disbursal of the All appeals dismissed. Page 6 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 amount to the petitioners and on the basis of such submission the Hon'ble High Court passed the directions to the respondents i.e. appellants/ opposite parties herein.
9. So far as quantum of award is concerned, however prayer is made in the appeal to set aside the impugned order but there is no specific ground to challenge the quantum of award as to whether the same is on higher side.
Regarding the balance amount in the savings bank account as on 31.03.2012 pass book of the account has been brought on record by the respondent / complainant which has entry of balance amount of Rs.7,30,770/- (Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy) but the appellants / opposite parties have not filed account details till that date and there is nothing on record on the basis of which the passbook entry and the balance shown in that entry can be doubted, as has rightly been held by the learned District Commission which calls for no interference. The amount of compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation also appears justified in our considered opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case from every angle, the documents available on record and arguments advanced by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that appellants / opposite parties were deficient in service in not paying the balance available in the savings bank account of the respondent/ complainant along with the applicable rate of interest. Accordingly, the impugned order, holding the appellants/ opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and thereby all the appellants/ opposite parties jointly and severally liable for payment of amount as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No.1 appears just and proper, hence the same is affirmed. Here it is made clear that whatever amount already paid to the respondent / complainant shall be adjusted in the amount available in his All appeals dismissed. Page 7 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Pannalal Sahu Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/109 to 112 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 the savings bank account on the relevant date after which the dispute arose and the balance amount will be paid along with interest, as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No.1, by the appellants/ opposite parties. All these appeals i.e. Appeal Nos.FA/23/109, FA/23/110, FA/23/111 & FA/23/112 are dismissed accordingly. So far as cost of this appeal is concerned it is directed that the appellants/ opposite parties shall bear their own cost and that of the respondent/ complainant which is quantified at Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand).
11. Original of this order be kept in the record of Appeal No.FA/23/109 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of other appeals being disposed off by this common order.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/10/2023 /10/2023
Pronounced On: 18th October 2023
All appeals dismissed. Page 8 of 8