- (1.) THE aforesaid two appeals have arisen out of one and the same order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum -I, U.T.Chandigarh in complaint case No.1115 of 2008 filed by Ms. Veena Gautam. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.
(2.) IN nutshell the facts culminating to the commencement of these appeals may be recapitulated thus ; The Complainant was a member in the NABARD Employees Urban Salary Earners Thrift and Credit Society and had invested Rs.2,91,675/ - in six different FDRs(annexures C -1 to C -6) along with her close relatives. The said FDRs were duly signed by OPs No. 3 to 5 being office bearers of the Society. The Complainant submitted her resignation from the membership of the Society on 18.12.2004 and had requested OPs No. 3 to 5 to return her principal amount invested, along with interest, but there was no positive response. The complainant even brought the matter to the notice of OP No.2, but he did nothing. Even the legal notice dated 11.6.2008 served upon the OPs, failed to fetch any fruitful results. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the parts of OPs, complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum.
(3.) ON the other hand the case of OPs No.1 and 2 before the District Forum was that they had nothing to do with the Society to whom the alleged amount was entrusted and have no control over the said Society and had no knowledge about its funds in any manner. The said Society being an independent body was/is being run by their own officials and was not under the control of OPs No. 1 and 2. They controverted all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The stand of OP No. 3 before the District Forum was that the Registrar, Coop. Societies, U.T. Chandigarh had removed the Managing Committee of the NABARD Employees Coop. Urban Salary Earners Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Chandigarh (Regd) vide its order dated 7.10.2004 and as such, succession of the Society was passed on to Sh. Malkiat Singh, who was appointed as Administrator of the Society. It was submitted that OP No. 3 was no longer Treasurer/Vice President of the Society and had no role in the affairs of the Society. The amount was deposited by the Complainant with the Society and not with any individual, therefore, the right action on the part of Complainant would have been to approach the Administrator of the Society for the payment of the FDRs instead of OP No.3. OP No.4 in his reply before the District Forum had also taken similar pleas, as had been taken by OP No.3 with a prayer to discharge him from the liabilities stated by the Complainant. OP NO.5 initially appeared before the District Forum through Sh. Kamal K. Sharma, Advocate and sought time to file reply and evidence, but none turned up thereafter on behalf of OP No.5 and he was proceeded against exparte. OP NO.6 took similar pleas as had been taken by OPs No. 3 and 4 in their respective replies. It was asserted that the right course for the Complainant would have been to approach the Administrator for payment of the FDRs.;