State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Co-Operative House Building Society ... vs Dharampal on 24 January, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.797 of 2019
Date of institution : 04.12.2019
Reserved On : 06.12.2023
Date of decision : 24.01.2024
Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed), Malwal Road,
near Marked Office, Ferozepur, through its Authorized Signatory.
....Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
1. Dharampal son of Diwan Chand (deceased) through his LRs
namely:
i) Ashok Kumar son of Dharampal son of Diwan Chand, resident of
Old Talwandi Road, Zira, Tehsil Zira, Distt. Ferozepur.
ii) Rajneesh Kumar son of Dharampal son of Diwan Chand,
resident of Kot Ise Khan Road, Zira, Tehsil Zira, Distt. Ferozepur.
iii) Avinash Rani wd/o Dharampal son of Diwan Chand,
resident of Kot Ise Khan Road, Zira, Tehsil Zira, Distt. Ferozepur.
iv) Dawinder Kumar son of Dharampal son of Diwan Chand,
resident of Kot Ise Khan Road, Zira, Tehsil Zira, Distt. Ferozepur,
Punjab.
....Respondents/Complainants
2. The Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch Zira,
opposite Jain Janan Hospital, Old Court Road, Zira, District
Ferozepur, through its Authorized Signatory.
....Respondent/OP No.2
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur.
2) First Appeal No.272 of 2021
Date of institution : 23.07.2021
Reserved On : 06.12.2023
Date of decision : 24.01.2024
First Appeal No.797 of 2019 2
1. The District Manager, Housefed, Office at Street No.3, Mandir
Wali Gali, Guru Maa Nagar, opposite Bus Stand, Ferozepur
Cantt., through its District Manager, PIN Code-152001.
2. The Ghubaya, CHBS, Office near Bus Stand, Fazilka, Tehsil and
District Fazilka, through its Secretary, PIN Code-152123.
....Appellants/OPs
Versus
Jangir Singh aged about 66 years son of Chand Singh, R/o Village
Khuranj, Tehsil and Distt. Fazilka, PIN Code-152033 (Mobile
No.98721-23272.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur.
3) First Appeal No.273 of 2021
Date of institution : 23.07.2021
Reserved On : 06.12.2023
Date of decision : 24.01.2024
1. The District Manager, Housefed, Office at Street No.3, Mandir
Wali Gali, Guru Maa Nagar, opposite Bus Stand, Ferozepur
Cantt., through its District Manager, PIN Code-152001.
2. The Ferozepur Satluj Co-operative House Building Society
Limited, through its Secretary, C/o The District Manager,
Housefed, office at Street No.3, Mandir Wali Gali, Guru Maa
Nagar, opposite Bus Stand, Ferozepur Cantt., through its District
Manager, PIN Code-152001
....Appellants/OPs
Versus
Mandeep Kumar aged about 39 years son of Balvir Chand son of
Prem Lal R/o Ward No.3, Balmiki Road, Bharat Nagar, Ferozepur City,
PIN Code-152002 (Mobile No.88473-80242).
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
First Appeal No.797 of 2019 3
order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur.
4) First Appeal No.289 of 2023
Date of institution : 19.04.2023
Reserved On : 06.12.2023
Date of decision : 24.01.2024
1. The District Manager, Housefed, Street No.2, near Usha Mata
Mandir, Jai Maa Nagar, near General Bus Stand, Ferozepur
Cantt. PIN-152001.
2. The Zira, CHBS, office c/o The District Manager, Housefed,
Street No.2, near Usha Mata Mandir, Jai Maa Nagar, near
General Bus Stand, Ferozepur Cantt. PIN-152001, through its
Secretary.
....Appellants/OPs
Versus
Veer Singh son of Bachan Singh @ Gurbachan Singh, resident of Gali
Telian Wali, near Guga Mandir, Zira, Tehsil and District Ferozepur,
PIN-142047 (Mobile No.99146-40897).
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present (FA No.797 of 2019):
For the Appellant : Sh. Abhishek Batta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 (a) to (d) : Sh. Davinder Kasuria, in person For Respondent No.2 : None.
First Appeal No.797 of 2019 4JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off total four first Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.797 of 2019, First Appeal No.272 of 2021, First Appeal No.273 of 2021 and First Appeal No.289 of 2023, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein and the same have been filed against the similar orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (in short, "the District Commission"). However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.797 of 2019.
First Appeal No.797 of 2019
2. Appellant/OP No.1 i.e. Co-operative House Building Society Limited (Housefed) through its Authorized Signatory has filed the present Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Ferozepur, whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant had been allowed against the Appellant/OP No.1 by issuing certain directions and the Complaint against OP No.2 was dismissed.
3. Respondent No.1/Complainant Dharampal had expired during the pendency of the Appeal. M.A. No.1206 of 2021 was filed for bringing on record the LRs of Respondent No.1/Complainant (deceased), which was allowed vide order dated 02.03.2023 and his LRs were brought on record.
First Appeal No.797 of 2019 5
4. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
5. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed by him before the District Commission are that he was a member of OP No.1-Society and had obtained a loan of ₹1 lac through instalments. He had paid an amount of ₹3,61,310/- towards said loan to the OPs but still he was pressurized to pay more amount by the month of September, 2018. It was also mentioned that he had already paid excess amount to the OPs and he was entitled to recover the same from them as per Notification No.RSS/RIN-CA-2/27/Lok Adalat/804 dated 15.12.2008 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab.
6. Upon issuance of notice in the said Complaint, the OPs had appeared through counsel and filed separate replies to the Complaint. Certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that the Complaint was not maintainable and the Complainant had not approached the District Commission with clean hands. The Society had no concern with the loan obtained by the Complainant from OP No.2. It was also mentioned that the Complaint was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the Complaint. It was admitted that the Complainant was the member of the OP No.1-Society. Other First Appeal No.797 of 2019 6 averments as made in the Complaint were also denied and the prayer was made for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.
7. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs and on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of the parties, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 11.10.2019 against the Appellant/OP No.1. However, the Complaint against OP No.2 was dismissed. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-7 is reproduced as under:
"7. The act of the opposite party No.1 in not settling the account of Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present Complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is directed to settle the loan account of the Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Punjab. Opposite party No.1 is further directed that after settlement of the loan account of the Complainant as per notification issue 'No Objection Certification' and redeem property of the Complainant, which is under mortgaged with them as security of the said land and also to return the original document of the property, which pledged with them. Complaint against opposite party No. 2 stand dismissed. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room."
8. Said order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellant/OP No.1 by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.
9. Mr. Abhishek Batta, learned counsel for the Appellant/OP No.1 has submitted that the District Commission has misinterpreted the relevant document i.e. letter dated 18.11.2008 issued by the office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, while issuing First Appeal No.797 of 2019 7 the direction to OP No.1 to settle the loan account of the Complainant as per Notification Dated 15.12.2008 and also to issue the NOC and redeem the property of the Complainant, which was mortgaged with them and also to return the original documents of the property, which was pledged with them. Learned counsel has further submitted that the letter dated 15.12.2008 (Ex.C-36) was not carrying any legal value and the same was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the detailed guidelines for settling the loan accounts were issued, as the Lok Adalat was to be held only for 2 days i.e. 20.12.2008 and 21.12.2008. The dispute in the present case was relating to the loan transaction between the member and the society and the terms and conditions of the loan transactions were mentioned in the loan documents, which were duly executed by the borrowers and the same were legally enforceable. The instructions/guidelines issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies could not override said contractual terms and conditions and as such the Appellant/OP No.1 was not legally bound to rely upon the said letter for settlement of accounts, as the rights and liabilities of the parties to the loan were governed by mutually settled terms and conditions, which were mentioned in the loan documents executed by the borrower/Complainant, as is clear from letter Ex.C-36. It has no legal bearing on the rights of OP No.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that the concession was granted to the defaulters as First Appeal No.797 of 2019 8 on date i.e. 31.03.2006 and whosoever was covered for a specific Lok Adalat of the year 2008 were to be considered only during the period of 2 days i.e. 20.12.2008 and 21.12.2008. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Complainant was liable to pay an amount of ₹5,44,843/- to the Appellant as on March, 2019, as is clear from Ex.R- 1 and Ex.R-2. The Complainant had neither moved any application at any point of time nor applied for settlement of his loan account in the Lok Adalat in the year 2008 and as such his case was to be considered by the District Level Screening Committing consisting of Member Secretary/President of the Society or any authorized person of the society and Chairman and for that purpose, a specific procedure was there. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dispute between the parties was to be decided by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Registrar and this power was delegated to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the decision, if any, was to be final subject to any Appeal/revision as per provisions of Section 82 of the said Act. At the end, learned counsel has submitted that the District Commission has not taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances while passing the impugned order and the Complaint had wrongly been allowed.
10. Mr. Davinder Kasuria, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (a to d) has submitted that the District Commission has rightly allowed the Complaint and directions were issued to OP First Appeal No.797 of 2019 9 No.1 to decide the matter in conformity with Notification dated 15.12.2018. The entire loan amount along with interest was paid by the Complainant and even the excessive amount was paid. The receipts to this effect were also produced on record. While appreciating the same, the District Commission has specifically mentioned while passing the impugned order and certain directions were issued to the Appellant to issue the NOC after settling the loan account. He has further submitted that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the Appellant had to file the Complaint, as inspite of refunding the excess amount, the Society had raised false and exaggerated claim to the tune of ₹5,35,811/- without any sufficient reason, whereas it was rejected by the District Commission. Learned counsel has further submitted that the provisions of Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab State Cooperative Society Act are not applicable in the present case, as the Complainant was the member and consumer of the Society, as he had availed the service of the Society by taking the loan facility on interest. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was a case of relationship of 'service provider' like any Bank and the consumers and charging of interest like other Banks. The objection of jurisdiction had rightly been dealt/decided by the District Commission. Learned counsel has also submitted that the Complainant had been fighting for his right for the last number of years and there was no fault on his part and he had already paid the excess amount, which was First Appeal No.797 of 2019 10 more that the actual amount claimed. The property of the Complainant is not yet free from the lien of the OP. All these factors have been considered by the District Commission and the Appeal has been filed by raising certain technical grounds, which are not tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the Appellant and Respondent No.1 (a to d). None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 at the time of final arguments. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
12. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, allowing of said Complaint against OP No.1 and thereafter filing of the present Appeal by the Appellant/OP No.1 before this Commission are not in dispute.
13. The Appellant/OP No.1 has raised an objection that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. As per provisions of Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, the dispute between the Complainant (member) and Society was to be decided by the Arbitrator. It is relevant to mention that this issue is no more res-integra. Same issue was involved in the case of The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M Lalitha (Dead) through First Appeal No.797 of 2019 11 LRs, I (2004) CPJ 1(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the disputes between a cooperative housing society and its Member regarding 'deficiency in service' can be resolved under the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para-17 is reproduced as under:
"17. The decision in Dhulabhai case (supra) also does not help the Appellant. The present case is not one where the question to be considered is as to the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court in view of the provisions of Section 90 read with Section 156 of the Act. Provisions of 1986 Act, as already made clear above, apply in addition to the other provisions available under other enactments. It follows that the remedies available under the 1986 Act for redressal of disputes are in addition to the available remedies under the Act. Under the 1986 Act we have to consider as regards the additional jurisdiction conferred on the forums and not their exclusion. In Dhulabhai case consideration was whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded. Propositions (1) and (2) indicate that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the jurisdiction of civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Further, where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act are wider. For instance in addition to granting a specific relief the forums under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering, etc., which possibly could not be given under the Act in relation to dispute under Section 90 of the Act. Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under the Act and forums are provided, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the 1986 Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act, reference to which is already made above..."
14. In another case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 (Virender Jain V. Alaknanda Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. in and connected matters) had decided vide order dated 13.04.2013 by relying upon the law laid down in the case of M Lalitha (supra) has held in Para-14 as follows:
First Appeal No.797 of 2019 12
"14. In our view, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. In the Complaints filed by them, the Appellants had primarily challenged the action of respondent No.1 to refund the amounts deposited by them and they extinguished their entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact that the action taken by Respondent No.1 was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot deprive the Appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available to them under the Cooperative Societies Act. Law on this issue must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Thirumurugan Co operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M Lalitha; Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. 2007 (4) SCC 579 and National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy 2012 (2) SCC 506."
15. In one more case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. v. M/s United Vaish Co-operative Thirft and Credit Society Ltd., 2002(1) CLT 101, the Hon'ble National Commission held as under:
"In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the argument that CPA is a general enactment while the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 is a special enactment as it was canvassed before us. This issue on the interpretation of a special or general Act does not arise in the present case. We therefore hold that Section 93 of the Societies Act does not bar the jurisdiction of District Forum assuming jurisdiction in the matter.
We are also not in agreement with the view of the State Commission that a member cannot be a consumer vis-a-vis the society of which he is a member.
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 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."
16. In the present case also, the Complainant was the Member of OP No.1-Society and had availed the loan facility from it. The Complainant had every right to sue the Society before the District First Appeal No.797 of 2019 13 Commission for the 'deficiency in service', in view of the law as laid down in the above said judgments.
17. As far as the issue of reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No.701 of 2015 titled as Aftab Singh Versus EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. has held that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the Complainants and the builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil Appeal No.(s) 23512-23513 of 2017 (M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited & Anr. Vs. Aftab Singh) was filed against the said order of the Hon'ble National Commission and it was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 13.02.2018. The Review Petitions (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 10.12.2018. Consequently, the existence of an Arbitration Clause or otherwise is not a bar to resolve this dispute by Consumer Commission.
18. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the Complainant was the Member of OP No.1-Society and he had taken the loan of ₹1 lac from the Appellant/OP No.1, which was repayable along with interest in instalments. It is not in dispute that the Complainant had already paid an amount of ₹3,61,310/- towards the First Appeal No.797 of 2019 14 loan amount as per payment receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-35. However, the OPs had asked the Complainant to pay an amount of ₹5,35,811/- up to the period of September, 2018. As per version of the Complainant, he had already paid the excess amount to the OPs and he was entitled for the excess amount paid to the OPs.
19. It is relevant to mention here that Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh had issued the instructions to OPs for recovery of the loan from the Members as per Notification dated 15.12.2008. The cases for settlement of loan account were to be decided as per said Notification in the Lok Adalat held on 20.12.2008 and 21.12.2008 in view of the aforesaid Notification dated 15.12.2008. However, the case of the Complainant was not considered and thereafter he had to file the Complaint.
20. The Complainant had already paid more than the due amount towards the loan but the OPs had asked the Complainant to pay an amount of ₹5,35,811/- up to the period of September, 2018. However, the Appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that any letter was sent to the Complainant to settle his loan account as per Notification dated 15.12.2008. Meaning thereby the case of the Complainant was not considered for settlement of his loan account in the Lok Adalat. The District Commission had allowed the Complaint by making specific observation that the loan account of the Complainant was required to be settled as per said Notification. As per said First Appeal No.797 of 2019 15 Notification, no interest was to be charged more than the principal amount while settling the loan cases where the tenure of the loan was for a period of 10 years and where the tenure of the loan was more than 10 years, in those cases the interest was not be recovered more than double of the loan amount. Although the said provision was removed subsequently vide letter dated 31.01.2020 but the fact remains that the said provision was removed after passing of 12 years and that too after passing of the impugned order by the District Commission. The other communication made by the OPs as annexed with MA No.365 of 2021 is also of no consequence. The provisions of said notification were applicable at the relevant point of time and the loan account of the Complainant was not settled in the Lok Adalat held in view of said Notification, which is a clear-cut case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OP No.1.
First Appeal No.272 of 2021
21. Similarly, in said Appeal, the Complainant had obtained the loan of ₹1,90,000/- from OP No.2 in the year 2000 for construction of the house by mortgaging his land with the OPs. The Complainant had repaid the total amount of ₹1,68,000/- towards the said loan account. Only one receipt of ₹40,000/- was missing but it was credited in account of OP No.2. The Complainant had requested the OPs to settle his loan account in view of the Notification dated 15.12.2008 but no action was taken. The prayer was made to issue directions to the OPs First Appeal No.797 of 2019 16 to receive the balance amount of ₹4,02,000/- from the Complainant and issue the NOC in his favour as well as to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
22. Upon issuance of notice, the OPs appeared and filed the reply stating therein that total amount of ₹7,77,773/- was outstanding against the Complainant as on 30.11.2019 along with further interest.
23. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.03.2021. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-7 is reproduced as under:
"7. From the perusal of this notification Ex C-9, it is clear that there is specific arrangement for the settlement of loan of Housefed with regard to its tenure and Ops cannot deny that this notification is not applicable on Housefed, rather it is binding on the Housefed. The act of OPs in not settling the account of Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, Complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to settle the loan case of the Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the remaining amount, if any, settled as per notification. OPs are further directed that after receipt of loan amount as per settlement in view of notification, issue the No Objection Certificate and to redeem the land which is under mortgage with them in security of said loan. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which Complainant shall be liable to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act.First Appeal No.273 of 2021
24. In the said appeal, Sh. Balvir Chand, the father of the Complainant had obtained the loan of ₹1,00,000/- from OP No.2 in the year 1995 for construction of his house by pledging/mortgaging the land with OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs had disbursed an amount of First Appeal No.797 of 2019 17 ₹91,900/- after deducting an amount of ₹8,100/- as share money. The father of the Complainant had paid total amount of ₹2,10,710/- to the OPs. Sh. Balvir Chand had died and thereafter his property was inherited by the Complainant being his son. The Complainant had requested the OPs on a number of occasions to receive the balance amount as per Notification dated 15.12.2008 and to issue the NOC but no action was taken. Prayer was made to issue directions to the OPs to receive the balance amount of ₹64,990/- and to issue the NOC and also to pay compensation ₹20,000/- and litigation expenses of ₹10,000/-.
25. Upon issuance of notice, the OPs filed the reply, wherein it was mentioned that the total amount of ₹6,31,257/- along with interest etc. was outstanding against the Complainant as on December, 2019.
26. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 02.03.2021. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-7 is reproduced as under:
"7. From the perusal of this notification Ex C-32, it is clear that there is specific arrangement for the settlement of loan of Housefed with regard to its tenure and Ops cannot deny that this notification is not applicable on Housefed, rather it is binding on the Housefed. The act of OPs in not settling the account of Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, Complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to settle the loan case of Balvir Chand father of Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. OPs are further directed that after receipt of loan amount as per settlement in view of notification, issue the No Objection Certificate and to redeem the land which is under mortgage with them in security of said loan. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which First Appeal No.797 of 2019 18 Complainant shall be liable to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act."First Appeal No.289 of 2023
27. Likewise, in the said appeal, the Complainant had obtained the loan of ₹49,000/- from OP No.2 in the year 1986 for construction of his house by pledging/mortgaging the land with OPs No.1 & 2. The Complainant had paid only one instalment of ₹2,100/- to the OPs through Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank, Ferozepur, which was duly credited in the accounts books of OP No.2. The Complainant had also paid an amount of ₹2,500/- as share money at the time of taking membership of the OPs. The Complainant had requested the OPs on a number of occasions to receive the balance amount as per Notification dated 15.12.2008 and to issue the NOC but no action was taken. The prayer was made to issue directions to the OPs to receive the balance amount of ₹1,42,400/- and to issue the NOC and also to pay compensation ₹25,000/- and litigation expenses of ₹10,000/-.
28. Upon issuance of notice, the OPs filed the reply, wherein it was mentioned that the total amount of ₹11,11,066/- along with interest etc. was outstanding against the Complainant as on March, 2021.
29. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 16.02.2023. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-7 is reproduced as under: First Appeal No.797 of 2019 19
"From the perusal of this notification Ex C-4, it is clear that there is specific arrangement for the settlement of loan of Housefed with regard to its tenure and Ops cannot deny that this notification is not applicable on Housefed, rather it is binding on the Housefed. The act of OPs in not settling the account of Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, Complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to settle the loan case of Complainant as per notification dated 15.12.2008 issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. OPs are further directed that after receipt of loan amount as per settlement in view of notification, issue the No Objection Certificate and to redeem the land which is under mortgage with them as security of said loan. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which Complainant shall be liable to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act."
30. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it is apparent that the loan accounts of the Complainants were not considered by the OPs in view of the guidelines issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide Notification dated 15.12.2008. The OPs were required to issue separate notices to the Complainants for consideration of their cases in the Lok Adalat held on 20.12.2008 and 21.12.2008 in view of the aforesaid Notification but it was not done. The 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs has been proved on record. The District Commission had passed the impugned orders after properly appreciating the evidence available on record and no interference is required.
31. Accordingly, finding no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Appellants/OPs, all the four Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.797 of 2019, First Appeal No.272 of 2021, First Appeal No.273 of 2021 and First Appeal No.289 of 2023 are hereby First Appeal No.797 of 2019 20 dismissed and the impugned orders passed by the District Commission are upheld.
32. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
33. The Appeals could not be decided/pronounced within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-19 as well as the Member was on Ex-India Leave.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER January 24, 2024.
(Gurmeet S)