State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ryan vs The Bhartiya Bank Employee ... on 4 May, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeals No: 1118, 1119, 1120 of 2016 Date of Institution: 22.11.2016 Date of Decision: 04.05.2017 Appeal No.1118 of 2016 Ryan s/o Sh. Vikash Mittal, Resident of 66-R, Model Town, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari minor through his real father and natural guardian Shri Vikas Mittal s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (S.E.) T & C Society Limited, Opposite Residency Hotel, near Railway Station, Rewari-123401 through its Chairman Shri Rajesh Malodia. 2. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (S.E.) T & C Society Limited, Opposite Residency Hotel, near Railway Station, Rewari-123401 through its President Shri Gulzari Lal. 3. Shri Rajesh Malodia s/o Sh. Chhaju Ram, Resident of 149-B, Gali No.3, Shakti Nagar, Rewari-123401 and also Field Officer, State bank of India, RASMECCC, Camp Chowk, Hisar. Respondents-Opposite Parties Appeal No.1119 of 2016 Ayan s/o Sh. Vikash Mittal, Resident of 66-R, Model Town, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari minor through his real father and natural guardian Shri Vikas Mittal s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (S.E.) T & C Society Limited, Opposite Residency Hotel, near Railway Station, Rewari-123401 through its Chairman Shri Rajesh Malodia. 2. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (S.E.) T & C Society Limited, Opposite Residency Hotel, near Railway Station, Rewari-123401 through its President Shri Gulzari Lal. 3. Shri Rajesh Malodia s/o Sh. Chhaju Ram, Resident of 149-B, Gali No.3, Shakti Nagar, Rewari-123401 and also Field Officer, State bank of India, RASMECCC, Camp Chowk, Hisar. Respondents-Opposite Parties Appeal No.1120 of 2016 Ram Kishan s/o Sh. Rattan Lal, Resident of 66-R, Model Town, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (S.E.) T & C Society Limited, Opposite Residency Hotel, near Railway Station, Rewari-123401 through its Chairman Shri Rajesh Malodia. 2. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (S.E.) T & C Society Limited, Opposite Residency Hotel, near Railway Station, Rewari-123401 through its President Shri Gulzari Lal. 3. Shri Rajesh Malodia s/o Sh. Chhaju Ram, Resident of 149-B, Gali No.3, Shakti Nagar, Rewari-123401 and also Field Officer, State bank of India, RASMECCC, Camp Chowk, Hisar. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate proxy for Shri Sudhir Rana, Advocate for appellants-complainants.
Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned three appeals bearing No. 1118, 1119 and 1120 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated September 7th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short 'the District Forum'), whereby Consumer Complaints No.347, 348 and 349 of 2012 filed by complainants-Ryan, Ram Kishan and Ayan, were dismissed.
2. Four Consumer Complaints bearing No.347,348,349 and 350 of 2012 filed by complainants-Ryan, Ram Kishan, Ayan and Babu Lal were decided by a single order dated September 7th, 2016 involving common question of law and facts. Complaint No.348 of 2012 titled as "Ram Kishan vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and others" was treated as main complaint.
3. As per version of the complainant in Complaint No.348 of 2012 titled as "Ram Kishan vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and others" The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, is a Society registered under Haryana State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The opposite parties-respondents allured the complainants that the opposite parties would give higher rate of interest on the fixed deposit amount deposited with the Society. Considering assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant-Ram Kishan deposited the following amounts, on different dates against different Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs), with the opposite parties:-
Sr.No. Amount deposited Date of deposit Maturity Value Date of Maturity
1.
Rs.1,00,000/-
24.09.2009 Rs.1,12,000/-
24.04.2010
2. Rs.1,00,000/-
24.09.2009 Rs.1,12,000/-
24.04.2010
3. Rs.1,00,000/-
24.09.2009 Rs.1,12,000/-
24.04.2010
4. Rs.1,00,000/-
24.09.2009 Rs.1,12,000/-
24.04.2010
5. Rs.44,000/-
24.09.2009 Rs. 49,280/-
24.04.2010
6. Rs.70,000/-
29.04.2009 Rs.78,400/-
29.04.2010
7. Rs.30,000/-
05.12.2008 Rs.33,440/-
05.12.2009
4. Similarly, in Complaint No.347 titled as "Ryan Vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and others" Ram Kishan deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of his grandson-Ryan (minor) on 3rd May, 2008 mentioning date of maturity as 3rd May, 2009 and maturity amount as Rs.1,12,550/-.
5. Likewise in Complaint No.349 titled as "Ayan Vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and others" Ram Kishan deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of his another grandson-Ayan (minor) on 3rd May, 2008 mentioning date of maturity as 3rd May, 2009 and maturity amount as Rs.1,12,550/-.
6. There is no need to give details of fourth complaint No.350 of 2012 titled as "Babu Lal vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and others" as no appeal has been filed by complainant Babu Lal.
7. Regarding the amount deposited in fixed deposit accounts by the complainants, as mentioned above, the complainant requested time and again to make payment of the maturity amount but the opposite parties did not make payment. Legal Notice dated 5th April, 2012 was also served upon the opposite parties. Facing this situation, the complainants filed the above mentioned complaints with a prayer to make payment of the maturity amounts of the concerned FDRs alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the dates of maturity and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in each complaint.
8. Written version of the opposite parties in all the three complaints is almost similar. The opposite parties have taken plea that the complainants have not come with clean hands as they have filed false and frivolous complaints; that the complaints are time barred and are not maintainable as the complainants are not consumers. The opposite parties have also taken plea that Ram Kishan-complainant, who is grandfather of Ryan and Ayan-complainants, used to work as an agent in the above mentioned Cooperative Society. Ram Kishan obtained fixed deposit receipts in the name of his grandsons himself, using unfair practice. Moreover, the opposite party No.3-Rajesh Malodia resigned from the post of President w.e.f. 12.08.2008 and he cannot be held liable to make payment of the amount claimed. A criminal case has also been registered against Ram Kishan regarding certain fraudulent acts in the functioning of the Society. It is prayed that the complaints filed by the complainants be dismissed.
9. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 7th September, 2016, all the four complaints bearing Nos.347,348,349 and 350 of 2012 were dismissed by the learned District Forum.
10. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 7th September, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants-complainants Ryan, Ayan and Ram Kishan have filed First Appeals No.1118, 1119 and 1120 of 2016, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 7th September, 2016.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files.
12. From the pleadings and evidence on the file, there appears to be no controversy regarding issuance of fixed deposit receipts in the names of complainants Ram Kishan, Ryan and Ayan, as detailed in earlier part of this order. The opposite parties have taken plea that the fraudulent and unfair means were used for obtaining FDRs in the names of Ram Kishan and his grandsons Ayan and Ryan, as earlier Ram Kishan was an agent of the opposite party No.1 -Society. The plea of fraud taken by the opposite parties in their written version is not specific.
13. It is not specifically pleaded that what fraudulent and unfair means were used for obtaining the FDRs. Merely because Ram Kishan earlier remained an agent of the opposite party No.1/Society, findings cannot be given that FDRs have been obtained fraudulently. It is not specifically pleaded that what particular act was done by Ram Kishan to commit fraud. It is evident from the copy of First Information Report (FIR) Annexure A-4 that a criminal case was registered against Ram Kishan and others at Police Station Rewari City under FIR No.177 dated 28th July, 2011 under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B,506 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the learned District Forum based its findings merely on the basis of registration of criminal case against Ram Kishan etc., mentioned above. In our view, findings cannot be given that a document has been prepared fraudulently merely due to registration of a criminal case in Police Station. A criminal case can be registered in Police Station on false plea also. Anyhow, Annexure A-5, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has also been placed on the file which shows that allegations levelled against Ram Kishan etc. could not be proved and were found false and discharge report was submitted. Merely, on the basis of affidavit of Gulzari Lal, President of the Society (Exhibit OP-1) and statement of Rajesh Malodia (Exhibit OP-2), findings cannot be given that Ram Kishan or any other complainant did any fraudulent act to obtain FDRs from the opposite parties.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants-complainants also placed on record copy of order dated 8th September, 2016 passed by District Forum, Rewari in Complaint No.340 dated 11.11.2014 titled as "Divya Sood vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and another". That complaint, based almost on the similar facts, was allowed by the District Forum. It appears that the learned District Forum took decision to dismiss the complaints filed by the appellants merely because a criminal case was registered against complainant-Ram Kishan and others. Photo copies of the FDRs have been tendered in evidence as Annexure A-6 in complaint No.347 of 2012 in the name of minor complainant-Ryan, Annexure A-6 in Complaint No.349 of 2012 in the name of minor complainant-Ayan and also as Annexure A-6 in complaint No.348 of 2012 in the name of complainant-Ram Kishan.
15. The affidavits of the complainant tendered in evidence alongwith copies of the FDRs are sufficient to give findings that the complainants deposited the amount in fixed deposit accounts against FDRs with the opposite parties-the Society, on different dates, as mentioned in detail in earlier part of this order. Plea of obtaining FDRs by fraud could not be proved. The appellants-complainants are entitled to receive the maturity value of the FDRs issued in their names. It will be justified to award interest on the maturity amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity dates, as in the FDRs also, the rate of interest was 12% per annum.
16. The opposite parties have also taken plea that Rajesh Malodia is not liable regarding the amount claimed by the complainants from the opposite parties as he had submitted his resignation from the post of President of the Society on 12th August, 2008. The copy of the application submitted by Rajesh Malodia dated 18th December, 2008 (Exhibit OP-4) and copy of the proceedings regarding resolution dated 29th August, 2008 (Exhibit OP-3) have been adduced in evidence. It is evident from the document Exhibit OP-3 that resignation of Rajesh Malodia from the post of President of the Society was accepted w.e.f. 29.08.2008 but in this resolution it is not mentioned that Rajesh Malodia shall not remain member of the Society. It appears that Rajesh Malodia submitted his application for resignation from the post of President and Primary Membership to avoid his liability to make payment of the amount of FDRs. Anyhow, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 - the Society, is still in existence and it makes no difference if Rajesh Malodia is no more President of the Society because the opposite parties The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd., has been sued through its President Gulzari Lal. Anyhow, the opposite parties are liable to make payment of the FDRs maturity amount alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of maturity till its realization.
17. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 argued that Rajesh Malodia cannot be held liable to pay the amount claimed in these three complaints as he is no more President of the Society because he has submitted his resignation from the post of President. Observations have already been made in earlier part of this order that resignation submitted by Rajesh Malodia as President of the Society, was accepted but record does not show that Rajesh Malodia ceased to be a member of the opposite party No.2 - Society. On this point of controversy findings have already been given by Hon'ble National Commission while deciding Revision Petition No.3741 of 2013 titled as "M.L. Sehgal vs. Shalu Chandna and others" vide order dated November 3, 2014.
18. As per facts of the above cited case law the Vice President of the Co-operative Society registered under Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 had submitted resignation to avoid payment of the depositors. In that case under similar circumstances findings were given by Hon'ble National Commission that Vice-President of the Co-Operative Society is also liable to make payment of the awarded amount. The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission fully supports the version of the complainants.
19. No other point was raised during the course of arguments.
20. As per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 7th September, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside only qua the decision in complaints No.347, 348 and 349 of 2016 filed by Ryan, Ram Kishan and Ayan. Complainant-Babu Lal, who filed Consumer Complaint No.350 of 2012 has not challenged the impugned order. Resultantly, these three appeals bearing Nos.1118,1119 and 1120 of 2016 filed by Ryan, Ayan and Ram Kishan are allowed, the impugned order dated 7th September, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum is hereby set aside and complaints No.347, 348 and 349 of 2012 filed by Ryan, Ayan and Ram Kishan are accepted. The respondents-opposite parties are directed to make payments of the following amounts to the complainants, as under:-
Complaint No.347 of 2012 (FA No.1118 of 2016):
The opposite parties are directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,12,550/- to complainant-Ryan, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the maturity date of FDR till its realisation. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment/mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
Complaint No.349 of 2012 (FA No.1119 of 2016):
The opposite parties are directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.1,12,550/- to complainant-Ayan, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the maturity date of FDR till its realisation. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment/mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
Complaint No.348 of 2012 (FA No.1120 of 2016):
The opposite parties are directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.6,09,120/- to complainant-Ram Kishan, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the maturity date of FDR till its realisation. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment/mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
21. Complaint No.350 of 2012 titled as 'Babu Lal vs. The Bhartiya Bank Employees Cooperative (SE) T&C Society Ltd. and others" was filed by Babu Lal and that complaint No.350 of 2012 was also dismissed by the learned District Forum by the same order. Babu Lal has not challenged the findings of the learned District Forum passed regarding dismissal of his complaint. So, this order shall not effect the decision of the learned District Forum qua Complaint No.350 of 2012.
Announced:
04.05.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL