State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Bhagayshri @ Dhanashree Manohar ... vs Shrimati.Bharati Manoj Suryavanshi ... on 27 April, 2011
BEFORE THE HON BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI First Appeal No. A/08/540 (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/03/2008 in Case No. CC/06/250 of District Kolhapur) 1. SMT.BHAGAYSHRI @ DHANASHREE MANOHAR SURYAVANSHI PATIL RA.MANGAON TAL-HATKANNGALE,DIST KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRIMATI.BHARATI MANOJ SURYAVANSHI PATIL AND OTHERS 3,RA.MANGAON TAL-HATKANNGALE,DIST KOLHAPUR KOLHAPUR Maharastra 2. Shri Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha maryadit, Murgud Taluka - Kagal, District - Kolhapur 3. Maruti Hari Ravan - Manager, Shri Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Murgud, Taluka - Kagal, District - Kolhapur 4. Shri Eknath Shankar Potdar - Chairman, Shri Ganesh Nagari Patsanstha Maryadit, Murgud, Taluka - Kaga, District - Kolhapur, ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member PRESENT:
SHRI D.R.INAGAVALE, Advocate for the Appellant None for the Respondent No.1.
Mr.Prashant Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
O R D E R Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19.03.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.250/2006, Smt.Bharati Manoj Suryawanshi V/s.Shri Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Ors. It is a dispute in respect of return of the deposit amount per deposit receipts which were kept in joint names of late Dr.Manohar Suryawanshi Patil and Dr.B.M. Suryawanshi Patil. The Respondent Society had taken the stand that they are willing to refund the deposit amount, but to a rightful claimant who obtains a succession certificate in her favour on the death of Dr.Manohar Suryawanshi Patil. The dispute is in between the Appellant/original Opponent No.4 Smt.Bhagyashree @ Dhanashree Patil, who claims to be a legally wedded wife of late Dr.Manohar Suryawanshi Patil and original Complainant Smt.Bharati Manoj Suryawanshi Patil who claims to be a joint deposit holder in respect of fixed deposits. The District Forum came to the conclusion that since Complainant Smt.Bharati Manoj Suryawanshi is a joint deposit holder, on the death of Dr.Manohar Surwanshi Patil, those deposits are to be returned to the Complainant and passed the impugned order.(2)
At the time of hearing Respondent/original Complainant Smt.Bharati Manoj Suryawannshi preferred to remain absent. We heard parties present and perused the record.(3)
In the instant case, as earlier pointed out, the dispute raised as to who is joint holder of the deposit receipts in question along with late Dr.Manohar Suryawanshi Patil. The dispute came to be settled in the succession proceeding before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, wherein Complainant from this Consumer complaint Smt.Bharati Manoj Suryawanshi Patil was also a party. As per order passed in Misc.Application No.231/2006 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, awarding legal heirship certificate in favour of the Applicant in those proceeding which inter alia included Appellant/original Opponent No.4 Bhagyashri @ Dhanashree Manohar Suryawanshi Patil and her minor daughter Priya. They were pronounced and declared heirs of late Dr.Manohar Suryawanshi Patil. However, learned Civil Judge preferred not to issue succession certificate in their favour.(4)
Carefully considering the order passed in Misc.Application No.231/2006, supra and particularly, the reasoning given in paragraph nos.4 and 5, said order it can be seen that the Civil Court had taken view that to decide the marital relationship between two persons and question as to the civil right pertaining to monetary claim i.e. deposits in question was not within its ambit. True, we do not sit in appeal against the order of Civil Court, but prima-facie, it appears to be a case of refusal of jurisdiction to decide the controversy in respect of deposits in question and issue succession certificate. It is for the parties to take appropriate steps challenging the said order or otherwise. It is submitted at Bar at this stage that the Appellant before us has already challenged said order passed by the Civil Court and the appeal is pending.(5)
It is a dispute pertaining to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Society for non-refund of the deposits. The issue involved is a subject matter of proceeding taken up for issue of succession certificate, supra, and which is sub-judice before the competent court and thus, the consumer dispute could be entertained. Furthermore, once the Opponent Society shown its willingness to pay the fixed deposits amounts to the rightful claimant no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Society could be alleged. For all these reasons, we find it difficult to agree with the impugned order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Impugned order dated 19.03.2008 is set aside and in the result Consumer Complaint No.250/2006 stands dismissed.
(ii) We make it clear before parting with the order that civil rights pertaining to deposits in question are to be settled before the competent Civil Court and observations made while passing this order will not come in a way for that purpose.
(iii) In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
(iv) The amount deposited by the Respondent Society as a condition of stay, on verification by the registry, shall be refunded to the Respondent Society Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, as per the rule.
Pronounced Dated 27th April, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale] Member ep