State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vanita Sehgal vs Satpal Dhiman on 16 March, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 840 of 2015 Date of Institution: 05.10.2015 Date of Decision : 16.03.2017 Vanita Sehgal w/o Sh. M.L. Sehgal, Ex-Vice President, The Ambala Durga Co-operative Non-Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Resident of House No.198, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City. Appellant-Opposite Party No.2 Versus 1. Satpal Dhiman s/o Sh. Walaiti Ram 2. Smt. Kiran Bala w/o Sh. Satpal Both Residents of House No.533/263, Sapatu Road, Ambala City. Respondents-Complainants 3. The Ambala Durga Cooperative Non-Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Ambala City through its President Smt. Santosh Rana w/o Sh. Parmod Singh Rana. 4. Santosh Rana w/o Sh. Parmod Singh Rana, President, The Ambala Durga Cooperative Non-Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Ambala City both the addressee # Kothi No.170, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City. Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
By filing this appeal, Vanita Sehgal - Vice President, The Ambala Durga Co-operative Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited (Regd.) (for short 'the Society')-opposite party No.2 has challenged the order dated August 19th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short 'the District Forum'). For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-
".........we allow the present complaint and the Ops No.1 to 3 are held liable jointly and severally to comply with the following directions within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this order:-
To pay the amount of FDR No.2264 amounting to Rs.18,100/- to the Complainant No.1 & amount of FDR No.2262 amounting to Rs.56,300/- to the complainants No.1 & 2 jointly alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e. (w.e.f. 18.08.2008 to 27.11.2009 & 29.04.2009 respectively) and thereafter on the matured amount i.e. (Principal +Interest), pay simple interest @ 9% Per Annum w.e.f. 28.11.2009 & 30.04.2009 respectively till its actual realization. To pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation."
2. As per version of complainants-Satpal Dhiman and his wife Smt. Kiran Bala, in the month of August, 2008 considering assurance given by the opposite parties, they deposited an amount of Rs.18,100/- vide Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) No.2264 dated 18th August, 2008 in the name of complainant No.1-Satpal Dhiman and an amount of Rs.56,300/- vide FDR No.2262 dated 18th August, 2008 in the name of both the complainants, with the opposite parties, The Ambala Durga Cooperative Non-Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Ambala City, for a period of one year. However, the date of maturity was mentioned by the opposite parties as 17th April, 2009 and 29th April, 2009 respectively. Smt. Vanita Sehgal and Smt. Santosh Rana-Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were the Vice President and President of the Society, respectively. The amount deposited in the FDRs was to be paid after the date of maturity alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Despite time and again requests of the complainants, the opposite parties did not make payment of the amount to the complainant. It is a clear case of deficiency in service. The complainants had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony due to faults of the opposite parties. The complainants are entitled to receive the maturity value of the FDRs, that is, amount of Rs.90,024/- which became due and payable up to 18th May, 2010, with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The complainants are also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.4900/- as litigation expenses.
3. All possible efforts were made for effecting service upon the opposite parties No.1 and 3. Ultimately, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte on March 28th, 2014 when they did not appear before the District Forum despite service through publication in the newspaper. It will be pertinent to mention here that after filing the present appeal also, all possible efforts were made for service of the opposite parties No.1 and 3 in the complaint and respondents No.3 and 4 in the memorandum of appeal. Ultimately, the above mentioned opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated March 01st, 2017, as they did not appear despite service, through publication in the newspaper. Shri D.S. Matya, Advocate appeared on behalf of complainants-respondents No.1 and 2 on December 08th, 2015 but after July 14th, 2016 none appeared in the proceedings of this appeal on behalf of the complainants-respondents No.1 and 2 also
4. As per version of the appellant-opposite party No.2, the complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract. Opposite Party No.2 was neither instrumental in issuance of FDRs nor ever remained connected regarding providing services. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 is not Vice-President or Member of the Executive Body as she resigned from the post of Vice-President long time back.
5. Appellant-Vanita Sehgal has challenged the impugned order dated 19th August, 2015 on the short ground that she resigned from the post of Vice-President of the Society long time back.
6. It is evident from the order dated November 3, 2014 passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'the National Commission') while deciding Revision Petition No.3741 of 2013 that apart from the opposite party No.1 - Society in this case, there exists another Co-operative Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited in Ambala known as The Vankhandi Non Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited. The constitution working etc. of both these Societies is the same and the only difference in both the above mentioned Societies is that Santosh Rana is President and Vanita Sehgal is Vice-President of the opposite party No.1 -Society in the case in hand, whereas Parmod Singh Rana-husband of Santosh Rana is President and M.L. Sehgal-husband of Vanita Sehgal was the Vice-President of Vankhandi Society. Satish Kumar was member of the Managing Committee. We want to mention here that other members and office bearers of the above mentioned two societies may be different as the list of the members and other office bearers has not been placed on the file. However, President and Vice-President of Vankhandi Society are Parmod Singh Rana-husband of Santosh Rana and M.L. Sehgal-husband of Vanita Sehgal, respectively. It clearly appears that both the above mentioned Societies were created by Santosh Rana, Vanita Sehgal and husbands of both of them. In this way, Parmod Singh Rana and M.L. Sehgal as well as their wives assured the public persons to deposit the amount in the shape of FDRs in the above mentioned Co-operative Societies.
7. From the record on file and order passed by Hon'ble National Commission, referred above, it appears that all it was done by Vanita Sehgal, her husband-M.L. Sehgal, Santosh Rana and her husband-Vikram Rana, along with other persons to grab money from the public persons by misusing the provisions of Haryana State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 as well as other provisions of law. The above mentioned Co-operative Societies used to receive payments from the public persons with the assurance for repayment of the amount with interest and to use that money for providing loan to the public persons and other institutions. As and when huge amount was collected from the public persons, Vanita Sehgal, her husband-M.L. Sehgal, Santosh Rana and her husband-Vikram Rana, along with other office bearers started making all possible efforts to avoid payments to the depositors. It appears that it was also a clever tactic used by Vanita Sehgal and her husband to submit their resignations from the post of Vice-President to avoid their liability qua the payments of the FDRs amount.
8. It will be pertinent to mention here that earlier Gulshan Rai Chandna, his daughter Smt. Shalu Chandna and few other depositors filed nine complaints bearing No.283 to 291 of 2012 before the District Forum, Ambala, almost with the same pleas as taken in the case in hand. The District Forum, Ambala, allowed the above mentioned complaints against the opposite parties except M.L. Sehgal, Vice-President of the Society. Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Forum, the complainants filed appeals bearing No.215 to 223 of 2013 before this Commission and this Commission vide orders dated 22nd July, 2013, passed separately in each appeal, accepted the appeals and held M.L. Sehgal and the opposite party-Society jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the FDRs.
9. The findings of this Commission, mentioned above, were affirmed by order dated November 3, 2014 passed by Hon'ble National Commission. While deciding the above mentioned revision petitions, the Hon'ble National Commission made observations that the concerned Co-operative Society is not rendering any service and having any business after the year 2008 as the Society does not have any amount. 250 complaints were filed against M.L. Sehgal and recovery of amount of Rs.2.00 crores was involved in those complaints. Moreover, it could not be established in that case that M.L. Sehgal ever resigned from the post of Vice-President. Observations were also made that the entire theory of submitting resignation by M.L. Sehgal was concocted version to avoid his liability being fixed upon him in the litigation.
10. It is evident from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed in case under F.I.R. No.92 dated 14th June, 2009, Police Station Sadar Ambala, that a criminal case under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, was earlier registered against the office bearers and other members including Vanita Sehgal, her husband-M.L. Sehgal, Santosh Rana and her husband-Vikram Rana, of the above mentioned two societies, in connection with financial irregularities and acts of forgery etc. In the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that sufficient evidence could not be collected against M.L. Sehgal and his wife Vanita Sehgal. No other document is placed on the file regarding further proceedings and result of that criminal case. In the copy of the order dated 21st November, 2014 passed by this Commission while deciding appeal No.914 of 2014 titled M.L. Sehgal versus Gulshan Rai Chandna and others, it was mentioned that M.L. Sehgal was held guilty and convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala regarding offences committed in connection with the affairs of the Co-operative Society. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that Shri M.L. Sehgal was held guilty and convicted by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala in the criminal case but later on he was acquitted by the appellate court. In the absence of any documentary evidence regarding further proceedings or decision of the criminal case before the appellate court, certainly learned counsel for the appellant can be believed that M.L. Sehgal was acquitted by the appellate court. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant also told that in fact M.L. Sehgal is no more in this world.
11. The arguments addressed before this Commission by the learned counsel for the appellants are the same as addressed in the above mentioned cases which were finally decided by the Hon'ble National Commission.
12. Admittedly, the appellant-Vanita Sehgal was elected as Vice President of the Ambala Durga Co-operative Non-Agriculture Thrift & Credit Society Limited on 28th March, 2006. It is evident from the document Exhibit R-2 also. Version of the appellant is that she submitted her resignation from the post of Vice-President but her name was not deleted from the record of the Society as Vice-President. Much discussion is not needed of the documents Exhibit R-3 to R-8 and Exhibits R-12 to R-36 adduced in evidence in this case. These documents are copies of number of resolutions and copies of the proceedings of the Society recorded from the year 2001 to 2004. As per version of the appellant she submitted her resignation from the post of Vice-President of the Society. The appellant did not adduce in evidence copy of the resignation letter submitted by her to the Managing Committee of the Society. The appellant-opposite party No.2 could not make it clear in her written version and by producing documents that on which date, month and year, she had submitted her resignation. In the written version also only it is mentioned that she submitted her resignation from the post of Vice-President long time back.
13. The situation in this case is like this. Copy of the resignation submitted by Vanita Sehgal has not been placed on the file. No document has been adduced in evidence to prove that any such resignation, if submitted by Vanita Sehgal, was accepted by the Managing Committee after passing of resolution as per required procedure. Letters Exhibits R-37 and R-38 were addressed by Sub Inspector, Cooperative Societies to the Assistant Registrar as well as Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies. Photostat copies of the letters dated 13th June, 2009 (Exhibits R-39 and R-40) were addressed by Vanita Sehgal to the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Society by the President of the Society. From these letters of correspondence it is clear that resignation submitted by Vanita Sehgal was not accepted by the Managing Committee. Proposition of law is not disputed that only Managing Committee of the Society was competent to accept the resignation if submitted by Vanita Sehgal.
14. From the above mentioned letters of correspondence, observations can be made that Vanita Sehgal could not make it clear that on which date, month and year, she submitted her resignation. It is also not clear to whom the resignation was submitted and that the resignation submitted by Vanita Sehgal was accepted by the competent authority. The acceptance of resignation cannot be based on assumption and presumption. Legally and technically if a person has been elected as an office bearer of a Co-operative Society or of any other institution, he cannot be exonerated from his/her liability towards the institution merely by sending resignation letter. The resignation of an office bearer of a Society and even of any other institution can be effective only after acceptance of the resignation by the competent authority. There may be possibilities that resignation of Vanita Sehgal from the post of President might not have been accepted keeping in mind the so many financial irregularities in the Society and keeping in mind the clever tactics being used by Vanita Sehgal, her husband and other office bearers of the above mentioned two Co-operative Societies. In this way, findings can be safely given that as the acceptance of resignation of Vanita Sehgal could not be proved, she is still Vice-President of the above mentioned Society.
15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-Vanita Sehgal has urged that Vanita Sehgal was only a member of the Society and she is not liable to pay the amount claimed in this case. Even if it be proved that she is Vice-President of the Society even then the office bearers and members of the Society cannot be held personally liable regarding the liabilities of the Co-operative Society. Moreover, keeping in mind the provisions of Haryana State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that as there are allegations of fraud, the controversy involved in this case can be decided only by the Civil Court.
16. Much discussion is not needed on the points of arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, mentioned above, because reply of all these points of arguments has already been given by the Hon'ble National Commission while deciding revision petition No.3741 of 2013 titled M.L. Sehgal vs. Shalu Chandana etc. referred in earlier part of this order.
17. Facts and circumstances of the above cited case law are almost identical to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In that order, findings have already been given that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide this type of controversy and Vice-President of the Society also can be held liable regarding financial liabilities of the Co-operative Societies. Moreover, this fact also cannot be overlooked that such type of acts by clever public persons to grab public money fraudulently are increasing day by day in the society. Keeping in mind the above mentioned circumstances, we feel in this situation when everybody in public life is facing such type of difficulties, it becomes the duty of the courts as well as of this Commission also to pass some effective, meaningful, relief giving and purposeful orders which should be based on equity and helpful for providing justice i.e. also natural justice. We feel courts should pass orders as the situation demands.
18. As per discussion above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned, correct and justified. Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed. We find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.
19. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
16.03.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL