ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioner
:
NEMO
For the Respondent
:
Mr. V.S. Bhati, Advocate alongwith respondent in RP No. 2552/2014 in person
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd NOVEMBER
2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned orders (as per details given hereafter), passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in appeals before them against orders passed by the District Forum, Ajmer, vide which, the consumer complaints filed by the respondents in all the cases were allowed and directions were issued to the petitioner Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. to return the share-money deposited by the complainants with them alongwith interest. The details of the complaints made, the appeals filed and the corresponding revision petitions filed before us are as follows:-
Appeal No.Sl.
No.
Complaint
No.
Complainant
Amount
involved
Revision Petition
No.
3
(Before State Commission)
1. 88/2011 Manish Wilson Williams ₹4700/- 2113/2011 RP/2177/2013
2. 86/2011 T.D.Williams
₹3,60,100/- 2114/2011 RP/2178/2013
3. 89/2011 Vinish Williams
₹27,000/- 2115/2011 RP/2179/2013
4. 87/2011 Maya Marie Rose
₹3,54,100/- 2116/2011 RP/2180/2013
5. 368/2011 V.S. Bhati
₹52,600/- 1445/2012 RP/2551/2014
6. 287/2011 Shankar Lal Garg
₹56,100/- 1446/2012 RP/2552/2014
2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that the complainants had deposited share- capital with the opposite party (OP) Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., from time to time. In consumer complaints No. 368/2011 and 287/2011, it has been stated that the said share capital was deposited as equivalent to 2.5% of the amount of loan raised from the said Bank. The complainants had since repaid the loan taken from the Bank. They had requested the Bank for the return of their share capital. In the other four consumer complaints, the complainants have stated that they had since resigned from the membership of the OP Bank and hence, the share money deposited by them should be returned alongwith interest. However, on the other hand, the stand of the OP Bank is that the complainants being share-holders of the Bank, do not fall within the definition of the 'consumer'. Moreover, as per some Reserve Bank of India (RBI) directive, the Bank had been restrained from making payment of the share capital to them, because the financial position of the Bank was not good. It is also being stated by the OP Bank that the consumer fora had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaints in question, as under the Cooperative Law, the Registrar Cooperative Societies or his representative alone, could take cognisance of such complaints.
3. The District Forum, Ajmer, vide their order dated 29.09.2011, allowed the four consumer complaints, i.e., CC No. 86/2011 to 89/2011. A direction was given to the Bank to return the share capital of the complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint alongwith litigation cost of
4
₹3,000/- in these four cases. The District Forum, vide their order dated 08.10.2012 also allowed the other two complaints, i.e., CC No. 368/2011 and 287/2011. In these two cases, the share-capital was ordered to be returned alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of its demand till payment and litigation cost of ₹2,000/-. Being aggrieved against the above orders of the District Forum, the OP Bank challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commissions. The said appeals having been dismissed vide impugned orders of the State Commission as per the details already given, the OP Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
4. The notice of all these revision petitions was issued to the respondents/complainants, who put in appearance through counsel. However, the petitioner Bank stopped making appearance after 30.07.2015 before this Commission. An application was filed on behalf of the Bank that a liquidator had been appointed for the same. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.07.2015 and the liquidator was permitted to pursue the present revision petitions. However, there was no appearance for them on the subsequent dates.
5. When the cases were taken-up for hearing on 01.02.2017, it was felt in the interest of justice to issue notice to Bholay Shanker, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who was reported to be liquidator of the Bank. A copy of the notice was ordered to be sent to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, asking him to direct the said Assistant Registrar to put in appearance before this Commission. Service of this notice was duly effected upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.04.2017, the previous counsel for the Bank appeared alongwith Bholay Shankar, Assistant Registrar. However, on the subsequent dates, none appeared for the Bank. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents were then heard and the order was reserved, which is being pronounced today.
6. It is clear from these facts that adequate opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner Bank to appear and plead their case before this Commission.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/complainants, at the very outset, has drawn attention to the orders/judgments in the following cases in respect of their contention that the complainants are covered under the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Smt. Kalawati & Ors. vs. M/s. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Societies Ltd. [2001 (3) CPR 194 (NC)]
2. Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. Lalitha
5
(dead) through LRs. [AIR (2004) SC 448]
3. Arajpatrit Rajya Karamchari Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samittee Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Society Rajasthan & Ors. [1995 AIHC 1084],
4. Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [1 (2001) CPJ 230]
8. Referring to the above judgements, in particular, to the order of this Commission in
"Smt. Kalawati & Ors. vs. M/s. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Societies Ltd."
(supra), the learned counsel says that a share-holder as a member of the society, was a person different from the society itself. It had been stated categorically in this order that a member of the society was competent to raise consumer dispute against the said society. In the other judgments, it had been brought out that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was an additional remedy, as stated in section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Referring to the contention of the petitioner Bank that the RBI had restrained them from releasing the share-money of the complainants, the learned counsel stated that the directions of the RBI had come much later in the year 2011, whereas the complaints were filed much before that. The learned counsel pointed out that in many other cases, the Bank had returned the share money of the concerned members. He has drawn attention to the case of Murli Khanchandani as stated in the order of the District Forum, in which the Bank had made offer to the said complainant to return the share-money, provided he withdrew his complaint against them. The learned counsel argued that the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below were in accordance with law and should be upheld.
9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
10. The first issue for consideration in all these matters is whether the consumer fora have the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the consumer complaints in question. It has been adequately brought out in a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Commission that as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the remedy provided to the complainant was an additional remedy and hence, the complainants in the present cases could approach the consumer fora with the instant complaints. In "Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. Lalitha (dead) through LRs."
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court brought out that the remedy under the consumer law was in addition to the remedy provided in the law, relating to the administration of the cooperative societies. It has been stated in the said order as follows:-
"The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act are wider. For instance, in addition to granting a specific relief the forums under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering
6
etc. which possibly could not be given under the Act in relation to dispute under Section 90 of the Act. Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under the Act and forums are provided, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the 1986 Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act, reference to which is already made above."
11. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the other two cases cited by the respondent/complainant in "Arajpatrit Rajya Karamchari Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samittee Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies Rajasthan & Ors.," (supra), and "Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. vs. State of A.P. & Ors."
(supra). It is made out therefore, that the consumer fora had the necessary jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaints in question.
12. The next point that arises for our consideration whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer' as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the order passed by the District Forum, it has been brought out that under section 16 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, every member of the society has right to resign from the membership and such member has the right to get his share or interest refunded out of the share-capital of the society upon his resignation. In the present cases, therefore, when the complainants had decided to resign from the membership of the petitioner Bank, which is a cooperative society, the refusal of the Bank to return the share-money amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainants have every right to seek remedy before the consumer fora in the shape of consumer complaints. It has been made clear in the order passed by this Commission in "Smt. Kalawati & Ors. vs. M/s. United Vaish Cooperative Thrift & Credit Societies Ltd." (supra) that a member of the society can raise a consumer dispute against the society and hence, such member falls under the definition of 'consumer'.
13. In consumer complaints No. 368/2011 and 287/2011, it is made clear that the complainants had deposited 2.5% of the loan taken by them as share-money. After the repayment of the said loan, if the complainants do not wish to retain the membership of the Cooperative Bank, they have every right to get their money back from the Bank. It is evident that these persons fall under the definition of 'consumer' under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, having obtained the services of the Bank for obtaining loan etc. Moreover, as provided under section 16 of the Rajasthan Act, the members have a right to get the refund of their share-money.
14. In so far as the contention of the petitioner Bank that the RBI had restrained them from releasing the share-money due to their bad financial health, it has been made clear in the order
7
of the District Forum that in many other matters, the Bank had refunded the share-money to the shareholders. In the case of 'Murli Khanchandani', the Bank had offered to return his share- capital, provided he was ready to withdraw his complaint against the Bank. Moreover, we tend to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that the directive of the RBI came much later, whereas the consumer complaints were filed earlier. At the present juncture, the entire money stands deposited with the District Forum in accordance with the directions issued by this Commission. There is no justification for the petitioner Bank therefore, to withhold the payment of their money to the complainants in compliance of the orders of the consumer fora below.
15. Based on the discussion above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. There is no merit in the present revision petitions therefore, and the same are ordered to be dismissed. The orders passed by the consumer fora are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER
8