Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
V.C. Sindhwani (Vazir Chand
Sindhwani) —Petitioner
versus
The PNB Employee Co-Operative (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.985 and 986 of 2017
Decided on 16.8.2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Ashok Bhalla and Mr. Ashok Shukla, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, office bearers of any Cooperative Society do not fall in category of service providers in respect of dealings with society.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Cooperatives—Deposits—Liability to make payment—Ordinarily, office bearers of any Cooperative Society do not fall in category of service providers in respect of dealings with society—It is only in a case where it is established that such a person has indulged in misfeasance/ fraudulent act with a view to defraud depositor under cloak of cooperative credit society that such a person would fall within definition of service provider and would be liable to compensate consumer for deficiency in service—There is no evidence of petitioner having personally defrauded complainant in any manner—There is no allegation that money collected from complainant was not deposited by petitioner in account of society—It cannot be said that petitioner had indulged in misfeasance/fraudulent activity with a view to defraud complainant under cloak of a cooperative credit society—Orders passed by Fora below, to the extent petitioner was also held liable to pay to complainant, cannot be sustained. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
Result: Revision Petitions disposed of.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant / respondent No.1 namely PNB Employees Co-operative (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. instituted a complaint against two persons one being another Society namely All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. and the other being the petitioner Shri V.C. Sindhwani, stated to be the then Secretary of the All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant society had deposited sume amount with V.C. Sindhwani, the petitioner in the complaint, subject matter of RP No. 985 of 2017. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner who alleged that he had no concern with All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. and that the matter was not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Similar averments were made in the complaint subject matter of RP No. 986 of 2017. A perusal of the receipt filed with the complaint would show that it was executed by the authorized signatory and the Hony. Secretary of All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. and the petitioner was the Hony. Secretary of the Society and in that capacity had executed the aforesaid receipt along with the authorized signatory of the society.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2015 allowed the complaint against both the respondents i.e. All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. and the petitioner Shri V.C. Sindhwani.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed, he is before this Commission. No appeal against the order of the District Forum was preferred by All India Bank Employees (S.E) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.
5. The primary issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the petitioner can be held liable to pay the amount which the complainant had deposited with the society merely because he happed to be the Hony. Secretary of the society at the time the deposits were made and had executed the receipts while receiving the said amount.
6. The issue involved in the matter came up for consideration before a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Amarjit Singh Vs. Gagandeep Singh & Ors. Revision Petition No. 2512 of 2011 decided on 19.12.2016. The following was the view taken by the Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Amarjit Singh (supra):
“16. On bare reading of the above, it is clear that a cooperative society on registration is a rendered body corporate, meaning thereby that it acquires an identity distinct from its member shareholders or the office bearers. Therefore, in our considered view, if a consumer has availed of services of the cooperative credit society for consideration, the cooperative credit society alone would be service provider qua that consumer and the office bearers of the said society who by virtue of being elected to the said position to manage the affairs of the society would have no privity of contract with the consumer and could not be termed as service provider. In our aforesaid view, we find support from the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Sou. Varsha Ravindra Isai Vs. Sou. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Bombay 6 wherein Hon’ble High court after discussing the provision of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, particularly Section 36 has observed thus:
“As stated above, in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the society can be proceeded against and can be sued or the society may defend any action in Civil Court or forum. However, so far as members of managing committee are concerned, they stand on totally different footing and they cannot be held responsible to contribute to the damages or make payment in respect of dues recoverable from the society unless the methodology prescribed u
