State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.Subramania Pillai,Kanyakumari ... vs The Executive Director,Nanjil Benefit ... on 8 December, 2023
1
Date of complaint filed : 06.09.2016
Date of orders pronounced : 08.12.2023
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.C.No.16/2016
FRIDAY, THE 08th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023.
P.Subramania Pillai,
S/o.Peachinathapillai,
4/15, Kannanputhoor,
Chenbagaramanputhoor Post,
(Via) Aralvaimozhi,
Kanyakumari District-629 301.
Complainant.
-Vs-
The Executive Director,
NANJIL BENEFIT FUND LTD.,
Reg.No.18-23500/92,
68/15, Ramasubramanian Complex,
Veppamoodu Junction,
Nagercoil-629 001.
Kanyakumari District.
Counsel for Complainant : In-Person.
Counsel for Opposite Party : M/s.D.Prabhakar, Advocate..
This complaint came before me for final hearing on 31.10.2023 and upon
perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-
2
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The Facts :
The complainant purchased shares in the opposite party Nanjil Benefit Fund Limited in his name, his wife Tmt.Vivekananthi's name, his sons karthika, Pechinathan, Arvind Lakshman's name, daughter Saranya, Maha Lakshmi's name and his mother Maathammal's name to the tune of nearly three lakhs. Meanwhile the complainant received a letter on 27.06.2016 from the opposite party as if he is liable to pay Rs.68,40,058/- towards a loan amount. The complainant never borrowed any loan from the benefit fund. When the complainant demanded particulars with regard to the alleged borrowing the opposite party failed to reply in proper manner. Hence, by falsely claiming that the complainant borrowed loan amounted to deficiency in service which caused great mental agony for which the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.40 lakhs towards compensation and the complainant is filed by the complaint. The opposite party in their written version submitted that the complaint is not maintainable, and the complainant is not a consumer. Further they have submitted that originally at the instigation of the complainant along with some other persons the Nanjil Benefit Fund was started. At the time of forming the company, the complainant worked in the People's cooperative Bank as Secretary. So, he cannot assume any post and his wife was selected as Director of the President of the Benefit Fund and one Sivathanupillai was the Executive Director of the opposite party benefit fund. The complainant himself took charge and on behalf of his wife conducted the business and gave loan in the name of one Suresh who worked along with the complainant. The above loan alone 3 came to Rs.68,40,058/- and the notice was sent. Hence there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
2. In this case both sides filed proof affidavit Ex.A1 to A7 and Ex.B1 to B11 are marked. Written arguments as well as oral argument were submitted.
3. The complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent Company argued their respective cases.
4. Now the points for consideration is
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service?
5. Discussion in the Point:-
The complainant appeared in person submitted that as a shareholder he become consumer and relied upon some judgments of the National Commission. This commission also perused the latest Judgment of the National Commission which the Judgment of the Apex Court was followed, The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Smt. Kalawati & Ors. vs M/S. United Vaish Co-Operative ... on 26 September, 2001 has held, As a member he has certain rights in the society like attending its meeting and right to vote. A member is a separate entity from the Co-operative Society which is just like a shareholder as in the Company registered under the Companies Act, 1986. Here is the society of which the complainants are member which invites deposits and pays interest and is to refund the amount with interest on maturity. Society provides facilities in connection with financing and is certainly rendering services to its members and here 4 is a member who avails of such services. When there is a fault on the part of the society and itself is not paying the amount on fixed deposit receipts on maturity, there is certainly deficiency in service by the society and a complaint lies against society by the member as a complainant. A co-operative society under the Societies Act, is a akin to a company under the companies Act, 1986.
If we refer to Section 35 of the Societies Act, a cooperative society is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted. A co- operative society is not bound by the rigors of the Companies Act. Under Section 4 of the Societies Act a society which has its objects the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with co-operative principles may be registered under the Act. A member of the society cannot exercise rights as a member unless he has made due payment as required by the bylaws of the society. A member has a right of one vote in the affairs of the society. It is apparent that rights of a member in a society are similar to rights which a shareholder exercises in a company. Rights of a shareholder are: (i) to elect directors and thus to participate in the management of the affairs of the company, (ii) to vote on resolutions at the meeting of the 5 company and (iii) to enjoy the profits of the company in the shape of dividends.
So, a shareholder is different person than the company of which he is the shareholder. He can certainly if occasion arises, proceed against the society raising a dispute. Further the National Commission clearly concluded, In the Case of Neela Vasant Raje vs. Amogh Industries & Anr. - 1986-95 Consumer 446 this Commission had taken a view that with reference to Section 2(1)(d) of CPA that where a company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a consumer under CPA.
This Commission also observed that the definition of the expression 'service' was couched in the widest possible language, and it expressly covered service of any description other than any service rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Thus, this commission hold that complainants were certainly a consumer and could maintain his complaints in this Commission.
6. So, as far as a shareholder is concerned with regard to registered company is a consumer. But, in this case the consumer dispute is arose not with regard to distribution of share or paying the dividend etc., Except in one place the complainant has stated that he was not given any reply with regard to his shares, his entire case was not on the ground. Moreover admittedly, as per his case, he borrowed shares in his name along with family member's name. But other family members were not 6 added as consumers in this complaint. How much shares borrowed in each family members name has not been disclosed to prove that he holds shares in the company. No shares numbers, no share certificate or related document produced before the commission. Hence no relief even if it is not asked with regard to shares the complainant failed to prove that how much he is holding shares and his demand of the share value or share certificate.
7. Actually, the main grievance of the complainant is even though he did not borrow any amount from the benefit fund they have asked to pay a huge amount which causes mental agony. His case of 'service' with regard to the Benefit fund company is, sanctioning of loan. It is the specific case of the complainant that no loan has been sanctioned to him which means there was no service rendered to him by the opposite party. When there is no borrowing of any loan, then there is no question of service or deficiency in service. Apart from this, any disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this commission. The complainant denied borrowing of any loan, the opposite party claimed him as a 'Benami' of his wife he acted as the President, there was further allegation of mis-handling the amount by sanctioning loan in the name of some other colleague. Those facts in issue will not come under the purview of the consumer dispute and this consumer forum did not have the inherent jurisdiction to decide the above disputed questions. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he did not prove any consumer dispute involved in this regard. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.
08. In the result,
1. The Complaint is dismissed.
7
2. No costs.
Dictated and pronounced in the open court to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 08th day of December 2023.
-Sd/-xxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ANNEXURE
List of documents marked on the side of the
Complainant
Ex.A1 05.10.1996 Pass Book.
Ex.A2 05.06.2016 Letter sent by complainant to the opposite
Party.
Ex.A3 27.06.2016 Notice sent by the opposite party to the
complainant to pay the loan amount.
Ex.A4 04.07.2016 RTI application sent by the complainant with
postal receipt and acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 --- Balance sheet of opposite party for 2014-2015
and 2015-2016
Ex.A6 --- Reply received from Registrar of companies
regarding share capital held by the complainant.
Ex.A7 07.01.2019 Forensic report.
8List of documents marked on the side of opposite party. Ex.B1 02.07.2016 The letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B2 29.11.2016 Notice issued by the Registrar of Companies regarding the complaint made by the complainant along with copy of complaint. Ex.B3 24.12.2016 Reply notice sent to the registrar of companies on behalf of opposite party.
Ex.B4 27.12.2016 The copy letter sent by the complainant to Registrar of companies.
Ex.B5 09.09.2017 Reply sent to the registrar of companies on behalf of opposite party for his complaint dated 27.12.2016.
Ex.B6 24.06.2003 Requisition of loan letter for loan account no.846.
Ex.B7 --- Extract from Deposit Loan Register for loan account no.846.
Ex.B8 24.06.2003 Requisition of loan letter for loan account no.847.
Ex.B9 --- Extract from deposit loan register for loan account no.847.
Ex.B10 21.12.2016 Letter given by Mr.Ashokan to the opposite party regarding the misappropriation of funds of the opposite part by the complainant.
Ex.B11 16.10.2018 Complaint closure intimation sent by registrar of 9 companies for closure of complaint dated 10.11.2016.
-Sd/-xxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
10