2010(3) CPR 112
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
S. N. Aggarwal, President; Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.) & Piare Lal Garg, Members
Vijay Sukhija —Appellant
versus
Swami Geeta Giri & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 258 of 2009
Decided on 20.10.2009

IMPORTANT POINT
The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 und the proceedings in the civil court can proceed simultaneously even if issues involved in the two proceedings are substantially similar and both the remedies can be availed by the consumer. Therefore merely because the civil suit was maintainable, respondent No.1 cannot be denied the remedy to institute the present complaint under the Act, 1986.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 3 and 12—Co-operative Societies Act—State Bank of India Employees Co-operative Society was constituted with a purpose of welfare of the employees of the Bank—It used to provide loans to employees by collection of deposits from general public—Respondent, 1 complainant was having saving bank account with the State Bank of India—She deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in fixed deposits with the Bank—She was told by the Branch Manager that this amount had been deposited in the account of the Society of the Bank and that it will pay more interest than the interest paid by the bank—However, when she went to collect the maturity amount of FDR, she was told by respondents, members of the Society that the Secretary Cum Cashier of the respondent Society had mis-appropriated the funds—Respondents, however, failed to make the payment—Complaint filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant and respondents, office bearers of the Society—Whether complainant was the consumer of the respondent society—(Yes)—Whether respondent society was liable to pay the whole amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest—(Yes).

       Held: In the present case, respondent No.1 had availed the services of the respondent Society of which the appellant and respondents No.3 to 7 were the office bearers. Therefore respondent No. 1 was the consumer qua the respondent Society and its office bearers i.e. the appellant and respondents No. 3 to 7. The respondent Society had been accepting the money from respondent No.1 through its functionaries and the fixed deposit receipts were issued to her. Since the appellant and respondents No.3 to 7 failed to return the money and failed to render assured and promised services, therefore, the respondent Society and its office bearers were deficient in service. (Para 33)

       The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 and the proceedings in the civil court can proceed simultaneously even if issues involved in the two proceedings are substantially similar and both the remedies can be availed by the consumer. Therefore merely because the civil suit was maintainable, respondent No.1 cannot be denied the remedy to institute the present complaint under the Act, 1986. (Para 50)

       The proceedings before the District Forum are summary in nature. These proceedings are determined on the basis of affidavits/ documents and it is not necessary that the witnesses are examined and cross-examined. Detailed procedure is not adopted in the District Forums. The object of the Act is to decide the proceedings in a summary way and speedily. The appellant and other respondent had full opportunity of producing the affidavits documents in support of their respective versions and they had produced the affidavits documents which were taken on record and were duly considered. (Para 58)

       Since the appellant and respondents No.3, 4, 6 and. 7 were also the office bearers of the respondent Society. therefore, they)’ were deemed to be running the affairs of the respondent Society in the eyes of law even if the amount had been accepted by Krishan Kumar Gawri, Secretary-Cum-Cashier, respondent No.5 alone on behalf of the respondent Society. Obviously it was so done by him in his capacity as secretary-cum-Cashier. The appellant and respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7 cannot avoid their liability as they were the office bearers of the respondent Society at that time. Therefore it is held that appellant and respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7 along with respondent No.5 are equally liable to pay the amount to respondent No.1. Besides that the respondent Society is also liable. (Para 62)

       In view of the discussion held above, respondent No. 1 is held entitled to the refund of Rs.10,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Since the money has been accepted on behalf of the respondent Society, therefore, the respondent Society is liable to pay the whole amount of Rs.10,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to respondent No.1.

       The appellant and respondents No.3 to 7 being the office bearers of the respondent Society are also liable to make the payment of Rs. 10,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates of deposits till the date of payment to respondent No.1 in equal share. They are also liable to make payment of Rs.5,000 each to respondent No. 1 as directed by the learned District Forum. (Paras 63 & 64)