AJMER URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. MANISH WILLIAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_17_LAWS(NCD)11_2017_2.html</FRM>

(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 Rs.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 Rs.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.