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 .