Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 480.
Instituted on : 15.09.2008.
Decided on : 22.12.2009.
K.S.Kadian son of Sh. Chhattar Singh., resident of 127, Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. M.D.U. Employees Coop. Urban (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.(Regd.) 119B, Subhash Nagar Rohtak through its President Suresh Bhatia.
2. Suresh Bhatia President The M.D.U. Employees Coop. Urban (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.(Regd.) 119-B, Subhash Nagar Rohtak R/o 111 Subhash Nagar Rohtak.
3. Assistant Registrar, Coop. Societies having its office at Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
Present: Sh.K.L.Khera, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh.B.M.Sharma for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT:
According to the complainant he opened a saving bank account/ RD Account no.575 on 28.01.2004 @ 12% p.a. and date of maturity is 28.1.08 and the complainant had deposited Rs.5000/- p.m. upto 1.7.06 with the opposite party no.1 & 2. The amount of Rs.150000/- beside interest is standing since 1.7.2006 in this account. It is further submitted that opposite party no.1 is the society and opposite party no.2 is the President of the society and opposite party 3 is the supervisory authority of the society. It is further submitted that the opposite parties have not paid the amount of Rs.150000/- and interest inspite of the repeated demands and requests by the complainant. Due to this act of opposite parties, complainant had suffered a huge loss, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.150000/- alongwith interests @ 12% p.a. till realization, Rs.25000/- as damages besides litigation expenses to the complainant.
After notice opposite party no.1 & 2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2008. However, opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the matter is between complainant and the Society and opposite party No.3 has no concern with the said society as the said society is registered by A.R.C.S.Rohtak vide Regn. No.779(TC) Dated 24.1.1995. Hence opposite party no.3 is no desirous to defend the case.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 and closed his evidence.
Opposite party no.3 did not file any evidence. Hence the evidence of opposite party no.3 was closed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and other material aspect of the case very carefully.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that it is not disputed that complainant as per R.D.A/c No. 575 had deposited the amount of Rs.5000/- P.M. w.e.f.28.01.2004 to 01.07.2006 with the opposite parties. The contention of the complainant is that he had requested the opposite parties to release the said amount but the same was not released by the opposite parties.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we are of the considered view that from the receipt Ex.P2, it is proved that the amount of Rs.150000/- is outstanding in the account of the complainant deposited by him with the opposite party no.1 and the same is not paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, opposite parties have failed to file any evidence to rebut the same. Hence the opposite party no.1 & 2 are liable to refund the outstanding amount to the complainant. In this regard Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2009) CPJ 200 (NC) titled as Ashish Rameshchandra Birla & Ors. Vs. Murlidhar Rajdhar Patil & Ors. has held that: “Amount not refunded on maturity- Complaint allowed by Forum- Directors of Society jointly and severally held liable-Order upheld in appeal- Hence revision- Direction of Registrar of Co-operative Society not obeyed- Corporate/cooperative veil removed- Directors correctly held liable for deficiency in service by Society- Order passed by Fora below upheld.” and as per the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 09.01.2008 titled The Rohtak Co-op. Vs. Ram Phal it has held that: “It is not disputed by the opposite party that complainant had deposited Rs.1 lac under the fixed deposit scheme of the opposite party and the complainant was entitled to receive interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 11.5% p.a. and interest shall be paid quarterly. The opposite party had only paid the interest to the complainant upto 10.3.2001 and thereafter on maturity, the opposite party did not pay neither the principal amount nor due interest to the complainant. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum was fully justified in accepting the complaint”.
Keeping in view the above referred case laws, which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable and opposite party no.1 & 2 are jointly and severally held liable. Accordingly, we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite parties No.1& 2 to pay the amount of Rs.150000/- of A/c no. 575 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 1.7.2006 till its realization and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from passing of this order failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from dated 22.01.2010 onwards till its realization to the complainant.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs and also sent to opposite party no.1 & 2 through registered post.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court:
22.12.2009.
…………………………………
Joginder Singh Jakhar, President
…………………………………
Meena Kumari, Member
……………………………
Virendra Kumar Jain, Member.
vs