State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gramin Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit , ... vs Manoj Chandrakar on 18 October, 2023
Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
APPEAL No.- FA/23/78
Date of Institution: 03/07/2023
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.
Manoj Chandrakar, S/o. Shri Tejram Chandrakar,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
APPEAL No.- FA/23/79
Date of Institution: 03/07/2023
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.
Surabhi Chandrakar, D/o. Shri Manoj Chandrakar,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
APPEAL No.- FA/23/80
Date of Institution: 03/07/2023
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. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (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.
Smt. Asha Chandrakar, W/o. Shri Manoj Chandrakar,
R/o. Vill. Birkoni, P.S, Tah. & Dist. - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent
Through: Shri H.S. Rai, Advocate
APPEAL No.- FA/23/81
Date of Institution: 03/07/2023
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.
Durgesh Nandini Chandrakar, D/o. Shri Manoj Chandrakar,
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/23/78, FA/23/79, FA/23/80 & FA/23/81 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 fixed deposit amount, All appeals dismissed. Page 2 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 the amount and date of award, complaint case number etc. are different and for the purpose of convenience they are being mentioned herein below : -
Awarded Amount (Rs.) Interest Fixed Amount of w.e.f. the Date of Compensation Sr. Appeal Complaint Deposit Fixed date of Cost of Impugned for Mental No. No. Case No. Amount Deposit complaint Litigation Order harassment (Rs.) Balance till the (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) date of payment.
1 FA/23/78 27/2017 08.05.2023 5,00,000/- 4,70,000/- @ 9.5% 6,000/- 3,000/- 2 FA/23/79 28/2017 08.05.2023 7,00,000/- 6,70,000/- @ 9.5% 6,000/- 3,000/- 3 FA/23/80 29/2017 08.05.2023 5,00,000/- 4,70,000/- @ 9.5% 6,000/- 3,000/- 4 FA/23/81 26/2017 08.05.2023 7,00,000/- 6,70,000/- @ 9.5% 6,000/- 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/23/78 are being considered in this common order.
2. Undisputedly, the complainant/ respondent deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) in a Fixed Deposit scheme vide receipt No.027819, which was to be matured on 05.04.2013. According to the scheme interest @ 9.5% p.a. was to be paid on the deposited amount. As per case of the complainant / respondent 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.670/2013 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/ appellants for payment of entire deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) with interest @ 9.5% p.a. till the date of payment along with All appeals dismissed. Page 3 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 compensation for mental and financial loss Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) and cost of litigation.
3. The opposite parties/ appellants in their joint written version except the admitted facts denied the allegations of deficiency in service leveled against them. The opposite parties/ appellants admitted the fact of irregularities committed by their officers/ employees and submitted that police complaint was lodged in the Police Station Mahasamund. It was further averred that against the amount deposited by the depositors, maximum amount of Rs.30,000/- has already been paid under Savings Guarantee Scheme rules to the depositors and the complainant/ respondent as well. Jurisdiction of the District Commission was also challenged on the ground that the dispute involved in the matter is of civil nature and another ground that the complainant / respondent had already filed complaint under Section 64 of Co-operative Societies before the Sub-registrar, Co-operative Societies, District Mahasamund. Another defence that the complaint was 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.670/2013 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. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (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 and the last ground is that the respondent/ complainant has concealed the matters decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh.
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. In this regard in the record of the District Commission in appeal No.FA/23/78 copy of the letter referred by the respondent / complainant in the paragraph No.6 of the complaint has also been brought on record which is available at page No.38 of the record of the District Commission. Letter dated 16.03.2016 is also available on record at page No.36 to 37. Copy of the above both the letters, regarding payment of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent / complainant, were given to the respondent/ complainant. Of course the same would have served/received by the respondent / complainant after the dates mentioned in those letters and the complaint before the District Commission was filed on 29.07.2017, hence the complaint was filed well within the prescribed limitation under the Act and this ground of appeal of the appellants/ opposite parties has got no substance.
8. However, in the record of the District Commission pertaining to Appeal Nos. FA/23/79, FA/23/80 and FA/23/81 only the pleading of receipt of letter dated 10.03.2016 is mentioned in paragraph No.06 but copy of All appeals dismissed. Page 5 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 such 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, have paid Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) to the respondent/ complainant and remaining amount of fixed deposit is still with the appellants / opposite parties and it is also true that the respondent / complainant was continuously making efforts for getting his 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 and Writ Petition No.1256 of 2013 and 08 other Writ Petitions common order dated 21.02.2014, filed along with application, I.A. No.03/2023 for taking documents on record, which was allowed. In view of judgement dated 11.04.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court as above, which clearly shows that the respondent / complainant was making his continuous efforts for getting his money back and the fact that the balance amount of Fixed Deposit and its interest 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/23/109, FA/23/110, FA/23/111 & FA/23/112, 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.
All appeals dismissed. Page 6 of 8
Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023
9. 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.670/ 2013 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 said 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 amount to the petitioners and on the basis such submission the Hon'ble High Court passed the directions to the respondents i.e. appellants/ opposite parties herein.
10. 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. It is an admitted position in the case that the respondent / complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) out of which the appellants/ opposite parties as per their written statement supported by affidavit have paid Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) to the respondent/ complainant and Rs.4,70,000/- (Four Lacs Seventy Thousand) remained to be paid yet with the applicable rate of interest as per the deposit scheme, which has rightly been held by the learned District Commission and calls for no All appeals dismissed. Page 7 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Ors. Vs. Manoj Chandrakar Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/78 to 81 (Along with 03(Three) other Appeals) 18/10/2023 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.
11. 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 amount of fixed deposit with 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 balance amount of fixed deposit along with interest applicable under the deposit scheme and compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation 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 Fixed Deposit amount 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/23/78, FA/23/79, FA/23/80 & FA/23/81 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).
12. Original of this order be kept in the record of Appeal No.FA/23/78 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