HARSHLAL BAHUGUNA vs GOVIND SINGH BISHT

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 12.1.2004 passed by the District Forum, Tehri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was rejected on the ground that the matter should have been settled through arbitration. The case should not have been filed before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case are very pathetic and reveal how innocent people are being deprived of their properties and money by the authorized agencies, although ignorant and innocent people have always been subjected to individual cheaters and fraudulent persons. THE complainant has got some land in Tehri. People of Tehri have been evicted for construction of huge dam. THE land of the complainant was taken and he was given a sum of Rs. 8,49,191/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty-nine thousand one hundred ninety-one) as compensation. THE poor man did not withdraw even a single paisa from this amount and deposited the entire money including the last of Re. 1/- in Urban Co-operative Bank on 19.10.2000. It was to be matured on 26.2.2001 and the complainant was to be paid a sum of Rs. 9,46,508/- (Rupees nine lakhs forty-six thousand five hundred eight). However he has taken a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) from this amount. It appears that he has also been depositing the amount in the amount loan but on maturity his amount has not been paid. THEn he filed a complaint before the learned Forum on the ground that the Bank has closed. THE Sub-Registrar of the Co-operative Society has been appointed liquidator of the Bank and he is making payment. He has also not made the payment to the complainant. THErefore, the complainant gave a notice and filed a complaint before the learned Forum on 19.7.2003. Before us the copy of the written statement, etc. has not been filed but from the judgment of the learned Forum it appears that no written statement was filed by opposite party No. 1 and the only plea taken by the opposite party No. 2 was that the matter may be got decided by arbitration. The judgment was given on 12.1.2004. It appears that after 12.1.2004, the complainant has also moved to the liquidator on 24.1.2004 for the refund of his amount. Still there is nothing to show that any amount has been paid. The complainant deposited the amount in the Bank. The opposite party No. 1 is a Banking institution. It earns profit on the deposits of the customers and that is a consideration for services discharged by it. It is settled principle of law that the Banking institutions are also covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It was alleged that under Section 75 of the U.P. Co-operative Society Act 1965, there is provision of arbitration. There is only bar of civil suit in the matters of liquidation of the society. This is not in respect of any debt of any individual. The case is not said to have been barred under Section 70 of the Act, nor there is any evidence to that effect. However, it is settled principle of law that if there is any consumer dispute, the arbitration proceeding are no bar to a case before the Consumer Forums.

Admittedly the complainant has deposited the money. Admittedly his amount has not been paid. Admittedly this is deficiency in service. Then a consumer case shall definitely lie. The provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act are supplemental in nature. This is not in derogation of any other law. It has been definitely held in the case of Udaipur Cement Works v. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, reported in I (1999) CPJ 67 (NC), that mere existence of an arbitration clause should not come in the way of an aggrieved party for seeking legitimate relief under the Consumer Protection Act which is special piece of Legislation to protect the interests of the consumer notwithstanding the other laws in force. The same view has been given by the Kerala High Court in a Full Bench case reported in 2003 (II) CPC 539, General Manager, Telecom BSNL v. Krishnan, wherein it has been held that existence of alternative remedy is no bar to a consumer case.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported in I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 200=2004 (I) CPC 179 (SC), Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, has held that in dispute between members of the Society, remedy under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation to the remedy available to the aggrieved person and it was held that even in the matter of disputes against the society, consumer case shall lie. The rejection of the complaint of the complainant on the ground that he should have gone into arbitration is totally illegal. The case should have been decided on merits. The liquidator also did not try to pay even a single pie till date to the complainant who has been snatched off his immovable property by the Tehri Dam Authorities and Government. He has been snatched off all his money by the Banking institution. The District Forum must be tough and hard in these matters. Property of a person cannot be taken except in accordance with law. He has got his constitutional right over his property, may be movable, immovable, cash.

WE could have proceeded to decide the case on merits but the learned Counsel for the complainant argued that he has got no records. The papers are still to be filed and he be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits before the learned Forum. WE agree to this contention. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 12.1.2004 is hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the learned Forum to decide it afresh in the light of observation above and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.