Kangra consumer forum orders Garla Dei cooperative society to refund Rs 47,500 along with costs to depositor

Kangra consumer forum orders Garla Dei cooperative society to refund Rs 47,500 along with costs to depositor

S Gopal Puri


Dharamshala: The Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled in favour of a local resident, Vinod, in his complaint against The Garla Dei Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., directing the society to refund the full amount of his matured deposits along with interest, compensation and litigation costs.


The case, registered as consumer complaint No. 21/2024, was instituted on January 19, 2024, and the final verdict was pronounced by a bench comprising commission president Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur.


Vinod, a resident of Panterhar village in Palampur of tehsil of Kangra district in Himachal Pradesh, had deposited a total of Rs 47,500 across four recurring deposit (RD) accounts with the society between March 2021 and August 2022. However, despite repeated requests, the society failed to return his funds upon maturity, prompting Vinod to file a formal complaint through his advocate, Kshitij Korla.


The commission noted that the opposite party, already declared ex-parte, neither contested the evidence nor appeared during final proceedings. The evidence submitted by Vinod, including deposit records and sworn affidavits, remained un-rebutted.


In its order, the commission recognised the investor-depositor relationship between Vinod and the cooperative society, stating that the society had a clear obligation to release the deposited amount. Its failure to do so was deemed a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.


Accordingly, the commission has directed the society to refund Rs 47,500 within 30 days from the receipt of the order, pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint filing until full realisation, pay Rs 4,500 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and reimburse Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.


The society, in its earlier reply, had cited financial difficulties and ongoing inquiries due to alleged embezzlement, even hinting at potential liquidation. However, the commission dismissed these defences, emphasising the society’s failure to fulfill its legal duty towards depositors.

S Gopal Puri

S Gopal Puri

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *