Skip to content

Bhagwan Singh v Urban (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society

22-Dec-09

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

Complaint No. : 349.

Instituted on     : 08.07.2008.

Decided on       :  22.12.2009.

1. Bhagwan Singh son of Shri Ram.
2. Smt. Sushila w/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh

Rs/o 767/31 Chhotu Ram Colony Kanheli Road, Rohtak.

………..Complainants.

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 no.336 on 5.10.04 @ 9% p.a. and deposited  the amount of Rs.50000/- and also deposited the amount subsequently in the account and an amount of Rs.84960/- is standing since 30.03.2007. Similarly the account no.337 was opened on 5.10.04 and deposited the amount of Rs.50000/- and an amount of Rs.11537/- beside interest is standing since 30.03.2007. Similarly in the account no.352, complainant deposited Rs.100000/- on 3.5.05 and an amount of Rs.7550/- is standing since 30.03.07 beside interest.  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 complainant approached the opposite parties for encashment of above said amounts deposited in the three accounts but the opposite parties have not encashed the same  despite his repeated requests. Due to this act of opposite parties, complainants have 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 FDRs amounting to Rs.104047/-alongwith interest of 9% since 31.03.2007, Rs.50000/- as damages besides litigation expenses to the complainant.

After notice opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 & 2 filed reply and in preliminary objections has submitted that such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute, that the present complaint does not fall within the preview of ‘Consumer’, that the answering opposite party is not a necessary party to the complaint as neither he is Hony. Secretary of the Society nor the President/member of the Committee. On merits it is submitted that the above said society is being governed and looked after by the Administrator/Inspector, Cooperative Societies Rohtak-III appointed by opposite party no.3 and the answering opposite party has no control over the affairs of the society. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 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 to Ex.P4 and closed his evidence.

Opposite party no.1 & 2 did not file any evidence and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.12.09.

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 complainants as per their Saving Bank Accounts no.337, 352 & 336 Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, had deposited the different amounts and the amounts of Rs.11537/-, Rs.7550/- and Rs.84960/- respectively are outstanding in these accounts on 30.03.2007. The contention of the complainant is that they had requested the opposite parties to release the said amount with interest but the same waere not released by the opposite parties.

After going through the file and hearing the parties we are of the considered view that from the receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, it is proved that the amount of Rs. Rs.104047/- is outstanding in the different accounts of the complainant deposited by him with the opposite party no.1 and the same is not paid to the complainants despite their 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 complainants. 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.104047/- of Sp. SB Account no.336, 337 & 352 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 31.03.2007 till its realization and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainants 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 complainants.

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

Filed in Rohtak | Tagged | Comments (0) »

K.S.Kadian v Urban (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society

22-Dec-09

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

Filed in Rohtak | Tagged | Comments (0) »

K.S.Kadian v Urban (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society

22-Dec-09

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

Complaint No. : 481.

Instituted on     : 15.09.2008.

Decided on       :  22.12.2009.

1. K.S.Kadian son of Sh. Chhattar Singh.
2. Smt. Gunwati w/o Sh. K.S.Kadian.

Rs/o 127, Sector-1, Rohtak.

………..Complainants.

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 complainants, complainant no.2 had deposited the amount of Rs.40000/- vide account no.2827 on 23.7.2002 and maturity date is 23.01.2008 and maturity value is Rs.80843/-, (ii) An amount of Rs.40000/- vide account no.3058 on 30.11.2002 and maturity date is 30.11.2007 and maturity value is Rs.79592/-. The complainant no.1 & 2 jointly deposited Rs.40000/- on 3.11.2006 vide account no.3006 and maturity dated is 3.2.2008 and maturity value is Rs.82377/-, (ii) Rs.40000/- vide account no.3007 on 03.11.2002 and maturity dated 3.2.2008 and maturity value is Rs.82377/-,(iii) Rs.40000/- on 3.11.02 vide account no.3008 and maturity value is Rs.82377/-, (iv) Rs.40000/- on 03.11.2002  and maturity date is 03.02.2008 and maturity value is Rs.82377/- as terms deposits with the opposite party no.1 & 2. 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 encashed the above said FDRs inspite of the repeated demands and requests by the complainant. Due to this act of opposite parties, complainants have 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 FDRs amounting to Rs.489943/-, Rs.50000/- as damages besides litigation expenses to the complainants.

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 to Ex.P7 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 complainants as per Special Term Deposit A/c Nos. 2827, 3058, 3006, 3007, 3008 & 3009 placed on file Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 had deposited the different amounts with the opposite parties. The contention of the complainants is that they had requested the opposite parties to release the said amounts 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 receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P7, it is proved that the amount of    Rs.489943/- is outstanding in the different accounts of the complainants deposited by them with the opposite party no.1 and the same is not paid to the complainants despite their 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 complainants. 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.489943/- of  A/c nos. 2827, 3058, 3006, 3007, 3008 & 3009 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity of alleged FDRs till its realization and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainants 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 complainants.

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

Filed in Rohtak | Tagged | Comments (0) »

Bijaya Kumar Sharma v New India Assurance

22-Dec-09

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NAYAGARH .

C.C. Case No. 23 of 2009

22nd December , 2009 .

BEFORE :

Sri P. K. Pattanaik , President ,

AND

Smt. Binodini Devi , Member .

Name of the Parties .

Sri Bijaya Kumar Sharma, aged about 50 years

S/o Late Mohadev Sharma,

At/P.O.:- Bhapur P.S: Fategarh

Dist- Nayagarh.

———————- Complainant .

-Vrs-

1.

Branch Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Ginni Bhawan(1st floor) Main Road, Khurda

Dist:- Khurda.

2. The Branch Manager, I.O.B, Bhapur Branch

AT/PO : Bhapur P.S. Fategarh Dist. Nayagarh.

3. Sri Benudhar Nayak(Insurance Agent)

At- Samaghanapur P.O. Biruda Dist. Nayagarh.

———————- Opp. Parties .

Counsel for the complainant – R.K.Sahoo, ( Advocate)

Counsel for the O.Ps : – N.K.Sarangi ( Advocate ) for O.P.No.1

K.C.Satapathy (Advocate) for O.P.No.2

Date of appearance of O.Ps : – 17-07-2009

Date of hearing : – 24-11-2009

Date of Judgment : – 22-12-2009

J U D G M E N T

Binodini Devi, Member :-

Deficiency in service in the grievance of the complainant against the O.Ps.

The complainant has alleged in his complaint u/s 12 of C.P.Act that he had availed a loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Bhapur Branch by hypothecation of his shop and received Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and the A/c No. was SL/GEN/310800305. According to the advice of the Bank Manager, the complainant insured the shop through agent O.P.No.3 and the O.P.No.3 deposited the premium amounting to Rs.435.00 in the New India Assurance Company Ltd dt. 3.11.08 as the shop keepers Insurance scheme . The complainant was also given the policy band bearing No.551001/ 48/ 08/ 34/ 00000802 on the same date i.e. 3.11.08 from the New India Assurance company. The complainant is an expert cushion mistri. On dt. 26.1.09 dt about 2 A.M the shop was burnt by an accident due to electrical short circuit. As per his version more than seventy thousand articles including the policy bond and other relevant documents were brunt. The matter was informed to the fire station and also to the Police station , Fategarh. The I.O.B. Branch Manager informed the matter to the Assurance company , Khurda. The company surveyor/estimater come to the spot and verified the documents like purchasing report, other necessary papers, policy bond , original money receipts etc. The complainant was unable to produce the above said documents to the surveyor at the time of supervision. The complainant is a non- oriya and uneducated person. According to their instructions the complainant collected duplicate documents and submitted before the company worth Rs.68,096/-. The Assurance company did not give emphasis on it. They settled the claim at Rs.8,750/-. The complainant did not receive such amount as it was very low.The complainant become harassed at such type of attitude of the O. Ps.

The complainant has filed the case with a prayer to give direction to the O.P.No.1 to give Rs.60,000/- to give direction to O.P.No.2 not to demand the loan amount, to give Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony to give Rs.10000/- for litigation expense and other relief or reliefs for which the complainant is entitled.

The complainant has filed some xerox copies of documents which as marked as Annexure-1 to Annexure-9

The complaint is supported by affidavit.

The complainant has examined himself as PW -1 and another Premananda Panda examined as P.W- 2 in support his case. On the other hand the O.ps have entered in to appearance and filed their respective written version separately.

O.P.No.3 in his written version has averred that he is only an agent and his duty is to collect premium from the complainant land deposited it with O.P.No.1. He agreed to have taken the premium from the complainant and deposited the same with the company i.e. O.P.No.1.

O .P. No. 2 in his written has challenged the maintainability of the dispute. Again averred that he has not committed any deficiency of service against the complainant and there is no cause of action against the O.p.No.2. The O.P.No.2 has sanctioned loan of Rs.50,000/- as per loan agreement. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the dispute against him is to be dismissed.

O.P.No.1 in his written version has challenged the maintainability

of the dispute and denies the allegations in the complaint and above all challenged the authority of the petitioner. O.P. No.1 has averred that there is no deficiency made by him to the complainant . He also denied the premium given to him by the complainant. The surveyor had come in right time so there was no deficiency caused to the complainant. Due to non production of the documents the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.25,000/- which was settled an nonstandard basis i. e. 75% of total loss.

O.Ps have filed their versions supported by affidavit.

O.P No.1 has filed certain documents which are marked as Annexure-A, B and C.

1) Letter to the surveyor No.548/09 to the Branch Manager , N. I. A. company Ltd on 4.5.09 is Annexure-A

2.

Settlement of claim calculation sheet is Annexure-B
3.

Standard fire claim Tarift note as per the Tarift advisory committee is Annexure-C

In the light of above pleadings of the parties the following issues need be adjudicated for a definite decision of the case.

F I N D I N G S

1. Whether the case is maintainable ?

2. Whether the O.Ps are guilty in deficiency in service ?

I S S U E No.1

O.Ps have challenged the maintainability of the dispute. It is no doubt that complainant is a bona fide consumer. He resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The shop of the complainant was burnt on dt. 26.1.2009 at about 2 A.M. night by the Electric short circuit . The shop was insured dt. 3.11.08 validation of the period is mention ed from dt. 3.11.08 to the night of 2.11.09 so cause of action was within the validation period. The case has been filed dt. 5.6.09, so it is not barred by limitation. From the above facts, it is clear that the case is maintainable.

I S S U E No.2

Section (2) (1) (g) of the C.P ACT defines “Deficiency” as under :-

“Deficiency means any fault,imperfection,shortcoming or inadequacy

in the quality,nature and manner of performance which is required to be

maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been

undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or

otherwise in relation to any service ”.

The O.P.No.1 has admitted that the house was burnt by fire. O.P.No.1 has deputed Surveyor on the very day i.e 27.1.09 receiving telephone message from Branch Manager of I.O.B, Bhapur . The complainant has not produced any original document regarding the purchase, sale, police report, fire brigade certificate of loss and sale tax return and income tax return etc. It was not possible on the part of complainant to produce those above mentioned reports at the spot on 27.1.09 as his mental condition was not normal. He wrote an application to the Manager on dt. 30.1.09 which is marked as Annexure-1.

Regarding identification of the local Sarapanch has also given an certificate which is marked as Annexure-2.(Xerox)

Annexure-3 is the shop keeper’s Insurance bond (Xerox). It is clear from the bond that the shop was duly insured.

Annexure-4 is the xerox copy of settlement intimation voucher of the Assurance company.

Annexure-5 is the xerox copy of acceptance note.

Annexure-6 is the xerox copy of the certificate of Fire Officer, Bhapur.

Annexure-7 is the xerox copy of the station diary entry dt.26.1.09 of Fategarh Police station.

Annexure-8 is e xerox copy of Electric bill. Annexure-9 is the xerox copy of the I.O.B money receipt dt. 7.6.2009.

The complainant has examined two witness ;including himself an his behalf. P.W.2 is the close neighbor of the complainant. They have stated that a single paper could not collected from the fire.

The surveyor demanded documents from the complainant. Due to fire he could not collect the documents readily . The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.25,000/- which was settled on nonstandard basis i.e. 75% total loss which comes to Rs.18,750/- minus the policy excess Rs.10000/- as per tariff advisory committee which comes to Rs.8,750/- settled in favour of the insured and accordingly loss voucher was sent, but it was not received by the insured.

The surveyor did not supervise the spot properly. The insured has nothing to produce. So it is clear that the O.P.No.1 is guilty of deficiency in service. However the complainant has submitted relevant documents and papers subsequently as at the time of fire, has mental condition was not normal and further those were to be collected from different officials.

Hence it is ordered .

O R D E R

The dispute is dismissed against O.P.No.2 and No.3 as there not liable for the grievance of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- ( Rupees fifty thousand )only to the complainant as insured amount and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of arson. He is further directed to pay Rs.500 /-( five hundred )only as litigation cost. The order shall be carried out within two months from the date of order.

Smt. Binodini Devi

Member

Sri P. K. Pattanaik

President .

Filed in Nayagarh | Tagged | Comments (0) »

Baikunthanath Dakua v Sikharpur Sevice Co-Operative Society

22-Dec-09

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NAYAGARH .

C.C. Case No. 18 of 2009

22nd December , 2009 .

BEFORE :

Sri P. K. Pattanaik , President ,

AND

Smt. Binodini Devi , Member .

Name of the Parties .

Sri Baikunthanath Dakua, aged about 41 years

S/o Late Hazari Dakua, Vill:- Panibhandar

P.O:- Kajalipalli P.S: Sarankul Dist. Nayagarh.

—————— Complainant .

-Vrs-

Secretary, Sikharpur Sevice Co-Operative Society,

At/P.O. : Sikharapur P.S.:- Sarankul Dist. Nayagarh.

—————- Opp . Parties .

Counsel for the complainant : – Self

Counsel for the O.Ps : – Sri S.K.Mishra ( Advocate )

Date of appearance of O.Ps : – 18-05-2009

Date of hearing : – 23-11-2009

Date of Judgment : – 22-12-2009

J U D G M E N T

Binodini Devi, Member :-

Deficiency in service is the allegation of the the complainant against the O.P.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he had availed an

agricultural loan in the year 1995-96 amounting to Rs 34000/- .After repayment of the loan a sum of Rs 3400/- was kept outstanding in the society in shape of share money. After settlement of loan amount, the petitioner again applied for a fresh loan but he was refused. He wanted to get refund of money so credited in his share money account. On 19.9.2008 he presented a written application for refund Rs 3000/- from his share money. As the O.P did not take any steps in the regard, a pleader’s notice was sent to the O.P on 30.9.2008. As the claim for refund of Rs 3000/- from the share money account,was not acted upon by the O.P , he sustained heavy loss resulting in mental agony. Hence he prompted to seek redress in this forum and claimed refund of share money along with interest and Rs 10000/- towards mental agony.

On the other hand O.P has entered appearance and filed

w/v stating that the complainant did not repay the loan but loan amounting to Rs 34000/- was exempted by Govt policy i.e “ Runachhad Jojana-2008”. The O.P for that admitted that an amount at the rate of the total loan sanctioned would be credited to share money account of the loanee member .The w/v of the O.P though did not admit application of further loan yet admitted the application for refusal of share-money Further it has been stated that in the year 1998,the late father of the complainant incurred a loan of Rs 5000/- and an amounting of Rs 17925/- was outstanding on the complainant and ARCS, Nayagarh has ordered on 13.11.2005 for realization of the said amount from him. On 24.12.08 the committee of the society in its meeting observed this matter and did not accept the eligibility of

complainant to get the share money refunded. Hence submitted for rejection of the complainant with cost.

The Complainant has filed and relied on the following documents-

Ext- No 1- is the xerox copy of pleader’s notice dated 30.9.08 addressed to OP.

Ext- No 2- Original receipts granted by Dolphin Service addressed to OP & Secy NCDC Bank ,Nayagarh, bearing C.N no 553 & NO 554 dated 30.9.08.

Ext- No 3- Carbon copy of the application dated 19.9.08 addressed to OP with due acknowledge.

Ext- No 4- Original receipt granted for Rs 68,842/- by the OP dated 30.06.2008

Ext- No 5- Xerox copy of letter No 79(3) dated 20.12.2000 of Sarapanch, Kajulaipali G.P addressed to Tahasildar ,Nayagarh.

Ext- No 6- Xerox copy of loan Ledger of Sikharpur SCS pertaining to Hazari Dakua.

Ext- No 7- Xerox copy of the Punch decision dated 19.07.08 .

Like wise OP also filed and relied on the following documents:-

Ext-A-is the Xerox copy of loan ledger of Sikharpur SCS pertaining to complainant.

Ext-B- Xerox copy of member & share money register of Sikharpur SCS pertaining to complainant.

Ext-C- Xerox copy of loan Ledger of Sikharpur SCS pertaining to Baikuntha Dakua B.F page 22/vol-5

Ext-D- Xerox copy of loan Ledger of Sikharpur SCS pertaining to Hazari Dakua.

Now to arrive at a definite conclusion the following issues need be examined

ISSUES

(a) Whether the complainant is a consumer ?

(b) Whether the case is maintainable ?

100.

Whether there O.P is guilty of deficiency in service

101.

(d) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?

Issues No.(a) & (b)

Section (2) (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P ACT defines “Consumer” as under :-

“Consumer means any person who ( hires or avails of ) any services

for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid

and partly promised, or under any system of differed payment and

includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who

( hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised ,

or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system or differed

payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the

first mentioned person ( but does not includes a person who avails of

such services for any commercial purpose ) ”.

Admitted fact, it is that the complainant is a member of Sikharpur Service Co-operative Society and in that capacity he availed an agricultural loan and at the rate 10% of the sanctioned amount was kept as share money till the final settlement of the loan amount. The sole allegation is that since his loan account has already been settled on payment of the total loan dues on 30.6.2008 (vide ext No 4) the share money should have been given to him accordingly to his application (vide Ex No3) and the OP failed to comply the same which has put the complainant to great inconvenience,expense and mental agony. A person enrolling himself as a member in a service co-operative society and indulges in loan affairs of the society for his own benefit is no doubt brands him as consumer .Further the definite allegation of non-disbursement of his share -money is clearly dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the OP. The C.P Act under section 2(1) (d)(ii) defines consumers and (g) defines “deficiency “. The case at hand therefore can not question the maintainability of the complaint.

Issues No. (c) & (d)

Section (2) (1) (g) of the C.P ACT defines “Deficiency” as under :-

“Deficiency means any fault,imperfection,shortcoming or inadequacy

in the quality,nature and manner of performance which is required to be

maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been

undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract

or otherwise in relation to any service ”.

The OP has strongly objected the claim. The OP has referred to the orders of the ARCS, Nayagarh Dated 15.11.2005 but no such order or dispute case number has been filed by him. According to him the late father of the complainant had availed a business loan and a total sum of Rs 17,925/- was due on him and this amount has been charged on the complainant. On the perusal of the documents filed and relied by the OP especially the Ext -D reveals that the loan was advanced to Hazari Dakua and in the signature column Hazari Dakua and one Prafulla Dakua have acknowledged the advancement of loan. No where the instant complainant has acknowledged the loan affairs of Hazari Dakua . The OP also has not enlightened as to how the complainant would be liable for the loan of Hazari Dakua and further nothing has been proved as to his liability and the dispute case before the ARCS, Nayagarh . The OP also has failed to prove that the society ever sent notice to the complainant to pay the outstanding dues of his father. On the other hand the documents relied by the complainant Exts No 5, 6 and 7 need to be taken to consideration. Those documents primafacia proved that the complainant was living separately and further during the life time of Hazari Dakua the complainant became a member of the society and it proves that both Hazari and Baikunthanath had separate establishments of their own and to fix liability on the complainant with regards to the outstanding loan of Hazari is not only unjustified but also ridiculous.

In the light of above discussion we have no hesitation to ignore the objections of the OP .From the above points it is clear that the OP is guilty of deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

Hence it is Ordered

Order

The case of the complainant is partly allowed against the OP on contest. The OP is directed to pay the complainant his share money of Rs 3000/- with 12% interest per annum from date of his application i.e 13.09.08 and further the OP is directed to pay Rs 500/- towards litigation cost to the complainant. The order shall be carried out by the OP within two months from the date of orders.

Smt. Binodini Devi

Member

Sri P. K. Pattanaik

President .

Filed in Nayagarh | Tagged | Comments (0) »