Anil Pahwa vs Baldip Singh

THESE two revision petitions (RP No. 1579 of 2001 and RP No. 1580 of 2011) filed by one Anil Pahwa, who was opposite party no.2 before the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the District Forum) are directed against the order dated 21st of April, 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in Appeals No. 38 of 2010 and 39 of 2010 respectively. The State Commission has dismissed both the appeals of the petitioner against the order dated 11th of December, 2009 of the District Forum, directing the petitioner to pay alongwith Amarjeet Singh, opposite party no.1, and the Sarb Bank Employee and OUSET & C Society Ltd., opposite party no.3 jointly and severally the deposited amount, with 16% per annum rate of agreed interest from the date of deposit till its payment. It has also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation in each case.

AGGRIEVED against these orders of the State Commission, affirming the District Forums order that the petitioner has filed these revision petitions. These revision petitions and the orders of the State Commission assailed are identical in nature and we, therefore, proceed to decide both these revision petitions by this common order. For the facility of easy understanding, we will refer to the parties as the complainant(s) and opposite parties as arrayed before the District Forum.

The facts of the case in brief are that Baldip Singh and Virain Sandhu were informed by Amarjeet Singh, opposite party no.1, that if they deposit any amount with their cooperative society, opposite party no.3, they would receive interest @ 16% per annum. Allegedly, said Amarjeet Singh convinced the complainants that the cooperative society has been floated by the employees of the renowned State Bank of India and, therefore, involved no risk. Attracted by the offer of higher rate of interest, Baldip Singh deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in FDR while Virain Sandhu deposited Rs.6,14,000/-. They received the interest amount on their deposits for some time. However, subsequently there was no remittance on account of the interest from the cooperative society. On being approached, Amarjeet Singh, opposite party no.1, who was the Chairman of the cooperative society, informed them that the interest would be duly remitted after certain loanees have cleared their dues. Later, however, the complainants came to know from the newspapers that there has been some bungling in the cooperative society and, therefore, they demanded the return of their fixed deposits. Despite repeated attempts when they failed to get the refund, they approached the District Forum by filing consumer complaints seeking the refund with interest etc. On notice being issued, the opposite parties, including the present petitioner, filed their objections. On consideration of the evidence before it and after hearing the parties, the District Forum directed all the three opposite parties to pay jointly and severally the amount deposited by the complainants along with interest at the agreed rate of 16% per annum since the date of deposit till its payment and also awarded a cost of Rs.5000/-. It has been stated in the said order that initially opposite party no.3 i.e. the cooperative society was directed to make the payment to the concerned complainants within three months from the date of receipt of the order and if the full amount is not paid or no amount is paid by opposite party no.3, then the remaining or the entire amount, as the case may be, would be paid to the complainants jointly and severally by opposite parties no. 1 and 2. It is this order of the District Forum which has been affirmed by the State Commission in the order impugned. Aggrieved once again that the petitioner/opposite party no.2 has filed these revision petitions.

WE have heard Shri Neeraj Pal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on admission. He has reiterated the same grounds advanced before the State Commission, such as lack of territorial jurisdiction, the complaint being barred by limitation, prohibition under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 for resolution of dispute of members of the cooperative society by other fora, and the petitioner being only an office bearer of the society could not be held responsible in his individual capacity. On each one of the above objections, we find that the State Commission has dealt with in great detail and has given reasons as to why these objections are not sustainable. It is an admitted fact that the deposits were received by the opposite parties. Amarjeet Singh, opposite party no.1, and petitioner/opposite party no.2, were the Chairman and General Secretary respectively of the cooperative society, opposite party no.3. It appears that these two individuals were the prime movers of the cooperative society, whose activities were controlled by them. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 admit that the amount has been received by them and receipts have been issued. The plea of their action as office bearers of the cooperative society will not catch any fly since the complainants have believed that they being the employees of State Bank of India would be committed to honour the commitment and their investment would run no risk. In fact by remitting the interest for few months, the opposite parties appear to have played a clever game to entice more deposits and faith in the depositors. There have been many instances of non-banking financial institutions cornering such deposits and disappearing in thin air leaving the depositors in the lurch. In this case, the State Commission, in our view, has correctly held that the deposits having been given to the opposite party no.1 at Chandigarh and the said opposite party having received the amount, which is not denied, as the Chairman of the cooperative society, a part of the cause of action has arisen at Chandigarh. The objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction, therefore, has been rightly overruled.

INSOFAR as the question of limitation is concerned, it has been amply discussed in the order of both the fora below and need no repetition. In any case, since the complainants have not received their deposits until date it would amount to continuing cause of action and, therefore, this objection cannot be sustained. With regard to the plea of the jurisdiction of the consumer fora vis--vis Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, we have noted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner only to be rejected. The issue has been discussed on earlier occasions by the consumer fora and it has been the consistent view that irrespective of the provision under the Cooperative Societies Act, the consumer fora would have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, particularly in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Commission in the case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vs. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. [I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)] while discussing the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 in a consumer case of deposits from the public has held that where a Company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a consumer under CPA.. With regard to the contention that the petitioner/opposite party no.2 cannot be held personally liable as he was discharging the functions of an office bearer of the cooperative society, and further that an administrator has been appointed to take care of the assets and liabilities of the cooperative society, the order of the District Forum makes it clear that the first attempt would be for the opposite party no.3 i.e. the administrator of the cooperative society at present to comply with the award and thereafter take follow up action against the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, failing which the liability will pass on to opposite parties no. 1 and 2. We do not find anything wrong in this order, as the complainant/depositor cannot be left high and dry for the conduct of the petitioner, who is held to have connived with opposite party no.1. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any substance in the objections raised by the learned counsel on the concurrent finding of the two fora below. There is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders so passed and, therefore, we decline to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the revision petitions.