State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ratan Chand Son Of Sh. Sunder Das vs Ludhiana Central Co-Operative Bank ... on 14 January, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009
Date of institution : 29.9.2009
Date of Decision : 14.1.2013
Ratan Chand son of Sh. Sunder Das, resident of Village Laddowal, Ludhiana.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Salam Tavri, Ludhiana
through Manager.
2. Satish Bansal, Manager, Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited.
(deleted vide interim order dated 4.10.2007 of the District Forum)
...Respondents.
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 436 of 2009
Date of institution : 31.3.2009
Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Salam Tavri, Ludhiana through
Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
Ratan Chand son of Sunder Dass, resident of Village Laddowal, Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeals against the order dated 17.12.2008
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present in F.A. No. 1380 of 2009:-
For the appellant : Sh. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents : Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 (Rattan Chand Vs. Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited & anr.) and First Appeal No. 436 of 2009 (Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Rattan Chand). Both appeals are filed against First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 2 the same order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(in short the "District Forum") and the same are disposed off in a single order. The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an agriculturist by profession and Member of the Lodhowal Co-operative Agricultural Service Society and was having account with respondent No. 1 bank regarding cash credit limit of Rs. 40,000/-. On 16.2.2007 the appellant presented a cheque bearing serial No. 510442 dated 16.2.2007 to withdraw Rs. 24,000/- in the presence of Sh. Sagar Chand, Salesman as well as Sh. Kuldip Singh s/o Sh. Hans Ram resident of Ladhowal in the respondent bank but the dealing Clerk directed the appellant to contact Sh. Satish Bansal, Manager of respondent No. 1. The said Manager asked him to put his signature on the back of the cheque to acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 24,000/- but after receiving the signature he refused to pay amount of Rs. 24,000/- on the ground that the said amount had been adjusted in the account of the Society which was outstanding against him and he was defaulter of the Society. The Manager also exchanged hot words with the appellant. The appellant made a written complaint dated 21.2.2007 to SSP, Ludhiana to this effect. A legal notice dated 2.7.2007 was also served upon the respondents. The act of the respondents was deficiency in service and it was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 24,000/- i.e. the amount of the cheque with 18% interest, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation due to suffering of mental, physical and financial harassment by the appellant as well as Rs. 5500/- may also be awarded as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 3
3. Upon notice, the reply was filed by respondents taking the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint as per Sections 55, 56 and 82 of the Cooperative Society Act. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant was President of three Societies and was defaulter of the amount of these Societies, which is as under:-
S. No. Name of the Society Principal amount Interest
1. Ladowal Soap Workshop CASS Rs. 966.65 Rs. 26558/-
Ltd.
2. The Ladowal Basket Workshop Rs. 4089.25 Rs. 12076/-
CASS Ltd.
3. Ladowal Hosiery Workshop CASS Rs. 18736.55 Rs. 35781/-
Ltd.
It was admitted that the appellant approached the respondents on 16.2.2007 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 24,000/- from his cash loan limit by way of cheque but the amount of the cheque of Rs. 24,000/- was adjusted in his account of Ladowal Soap Workshop CASS Ltd. and this information was given to the appellant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The District Forum vide its order dated 17.12.2008 accepted the complaint and respondent No. 1-Bank was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the appellant on account of deficiency in service within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
5. The appellant filed the present appeal against the order of the District Forum for modifying the order of the District Forum vide which the complaint of the appellant was partly allowed with the prayer that the complaint of the appellant may please be accepted in toto. First Appeal No. 436 of 2009
6. The appellant-Ludhiana Central Co-op Bank Ltd. has also filed the present appeal against the order of the District Forum on the grounds that the District Forum passed the order against the facts on record and First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 4 settled law that the bank has exercised its legal right to recover the outstanding loan amount and, as such, is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant and prayed for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the District Forum.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant had presented a cheque of Rs. 24000/- with the respondents for payment against his cash credit limit of Rs. 40,000/- but the amount of the cheque of Rs. 24,000/- was not paid in cash to the appellant by the respondents.
9. The version of the respondents is that the amount of Rs. 24,000/- was adjusted against his loan amount as he was defaulter of Ladowal Soap Workshop CASS Ltd..
10. It is not the version of the respondents that the appellant had given consent for the adjustment of the amount of cheque against his outstanding loan amount of Ladowal Soap Workshop CASS Ltd.
11. The appellant was defaulter of the Societies and not of the respondent Bank and it is also nowhere pleaded by the respondents that the appellant had availed any loan from respondent No. 1 Bank and he was defaulter of the Bank.
12. There is no provision if a defaulter of the Co-operative Society presents cheque of some amount to encash from the respondent Bank, the Bank can adjust the said amount in the defaulting account of the Society without his consent.
13. The counsel for the respondents cited the judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in First Appeal No. 536 of 1993 titled as "Bank of India versus S.N. Chawla", decided on 17.11.1999 and also First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 5 of the Hon'ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak titled as "Narayan Pradhan versus Syndicate Bank", 2009 (2) CLT 556 but the same are not applicable to the facts of the present dispute, as such, we are of the view that it was deficiency in service of the respondents for non-payment of Rs. 24,000/- to the appellant and credit of the same amount in his Ladowal Soap Workshop CASS Ltd..
14. The respondent No. 1 in the complaint as well as in the grounds of appeal not denied that an amount of Rs. 24,000/- was not credited in his account of Ladowal Soap Workshop CASS Ltd.. It was also not denied by the appellant that he was not defaulter of the said Society.
15. So in the above circumstances, it will not be proper to direct respondent No. 1 to debt amount of Rs. 24,000/- in the loan account of the appellant of the same Society and to pay back to the appellant but certainly, there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1(as respondent No. 2 has already been deleted).
16. The order passed by the learned District Forum on merits is legal and valid but the amount of Rs. 5,000/- granted on account of compensation is on lower side, as such, the same is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and the order of the District Forum is modified to this extent only. First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 of the appellant is partly accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is modified.
17. The Managing Director of respondent No. 1 Bank is directed to recover the amount awarded by this Commission from the pay of the officer/official(s), who was/were at fault.
First Appeal No. 436 of 2009
18. The appellant Co-operative Bank Limited had taken the objection that as per Sections 55, 56, 68, 69 and 82 of the Co-operative First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 6 Societies Act, 1961, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
19. This objection of the appellant was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Hon'ble National Commission in number of judgments and it was by the Hon'ble National Commission in "MAHYCO MONSANTO BIO TECH (I) LTD. & ANR. Versus BODDULURI JEEVAN KUMAR & ANR.", III (2009) CPJ 379 (NC) in para No. 14 as follows:-
14. Another objection raised by the petitioner is that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the present case as the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Rules, 1968 are applicable and in this connection, it has been submitted that Apex Court in National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madusudan Reddy, Civil Appeal No. 10813/03 has granted special leave on the question where the provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 over ride the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In fact, this issue has been dealt with by this Commission in National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. P.V. Krishna Reddy (supra). In the said case, it has been held that the issue has been concluded by judgment in National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madusudan Reddy (supra), wherein it was contended that the Seeds Act, 1966 was special Act and would prevail over the general Act. This contention was rejected on the ground that Seeds Act, 1966 is completely silent on the situation where a farmer has purchased seeds from an authorized dealer which failed to give desired results. It was further held that the Seeds Act did not deal with the pathos of the farmer, who has invested money, time and resources to get fruits but failed to get it on account of poor quality/defective seeds. Besides that, it was also held therein that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a Special Act having additional/extended jurisdiction, inasmuch as Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a clear bar. There are a number of Apex Court's pronouncements on this aspect that the remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act is in addition to and not derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
20. As per the above settled law, the District Forum was having the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
First Appeal No. 1380 of 2009 7
21. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same being without any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
22. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 7.1.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
23. The appellant-Ludhiana Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. in F.A. No. 436 of 2009 had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 2,500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
24. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
25. Copy of this order be placed on First Appeal No. 436 of 2009 (Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Rattan Chand).
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
January 14, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member