State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sau.Manda W/O Vilasrao Lohote vs Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd on 3 March, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR Revision Petition No. RP/16/7 (Arisen out of Order Dated 10/08/2012 in Case No. 297/2012 of District Nagpur) 1. SAU.MANDA W/O VILASRAO LOHOTE R/O.B-3/112,BAJRANG COMPLEX,SIRASPETH,NAGPUR NAGPUR 2. VILAS S/O WAMANRAO LOHOTE R/O.B-3/112,BAJRANG COMPLEX,SIRASPETH,NAGPUR NAGPUR 3. MANJUSHREE VILASRAO LOHOTE R/O.B-3/112,BAJRANG COMPLEX,SIRASPETH,NAGPUR NAGPUR 4. WAMANRAO NATTHUSA LOHOTE POST-MHAISANG,AKOLA AKOLA 5. SUMANBAI WAMANRAO LOHOTE POST-MHAISANG AKOLA 6. DR.PRAVIN WAMANRAO LOHOTE R/O.KALYANI NAGAR,OLD MUNDWA ROAD,NEAR WATER TANK,PUNE 7. DR.KU.HONY VILASRAO LOHOTE R/O.KALYANI NAGAR,OLD MUNDWA ROAD,NEAR WATAR TANK,PUNE-14 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI BANK LTD HEAD OFFICE GANDHINAGAR,MAHAL,NAGPUR NAGPUR 2. SUBHASH MAHADEO PANSE R/O.FLAT NO-304,PRANHITA POLICE OFFICER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DEONAGAR,KHAMLA ROAD,NAGPUR ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Dated : 03 Mar 2017 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 03/03/2017) PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. Advocate Mr. P.B.Rathi is present for the petitioner No. 6- Dr. Pravin Wamanrao Lohote. The petitioner No. 1- Sau Manda Vilasrao Lohote and petitioner No. 2- Mr. Vilas Wamanrao Lohote in person are present. None is present for the petitioner Nos. 3,4,5&7. Advocate Mr. R.R. Poharkar is present for the respondent No.1- Bank. The respondent No. 2 is already proceeded exparte as per order passed by this Commission on 19/09/2016. Today we have heard Advocate Mr. Rathi for petitioner No. 6. We have also heard Petitioner Nos. 1&2 and Advocate Mr. Poharkar for the respondent No. 1 at length. We have also perused the material placed before us by both the parties in the revision petition. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11/12/2015 passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. RBT/CC/12/297 by which amendment application (exhibit No. 21) made by the petitioners herein/original complainants has been rejected mainly on the grounds, firstly by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the O.P.No. 2 provided any service to the complainant or there was any unfair trade practice on his part by making investigation against the petitioners and the complainants are not the consumer of the O.P. No. 2. Secondly, the main prayer in the complaint is to release the account and that claim can be made only against the O.P.No. 1- Bank. Third ground is that the O.P.No. 1 filed reply in the year 2012 and application for amendment is made in the month of March-2015 and said delay is not explained by the complainants.
2. It is seen that the petitioners herein filed consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the O.P.No.1- Bank and O.P.No. 2- Police Officer with request that the O.P.No. 1 may be directed to release the bank saving account and to pay petitioners compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards loss sustained by them due to seizing of petitioners accounts by the O.P. No. 1 at the instance of the O.P.No. 2. The said complaint was filed on 25/04/2012. However, after reply was filed by the O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 before the Forum, the present petitioners filed an application for amendment in the complaint on 20/03/2015. They wanted to amend the prayer clause of the aforesaid complaint to the effect that the O.P.Nos. 1&2 jointly and severally shall pay them the aforesaid compensation and cost of the complaint in view of the freezing of their bank account, by joining hands with each other.
3. The said application was opposed by the O.P.Nos. 1&2 by filing their reply respectively on 17/08/2015 and 10/06/2015. The Forum after hearing both the parties, rejected the said amendment application on the aforesaid three grounds by passing the impugned order.
4. The learned advocate Mr. P.B. Rathi appearing for the petitioner No. 6 submitted that the Forum erred in rejecting that application as merits of the case cannot be considered while deciding the application for amendment. He also pointed that in para No. 7 of the impugned order, the Forum stated that the contention of the learned advocate of the complainant on amendment is correct, but the Forum then erred in rejecting that application. Thus he requested that in the interest of justice the amendment may be allowed by setting aside impugned order as prima facie there is evidence that the O.P.Nos. 1&2 joined hand with each other for freezing bank account of the complainants.
5. The petitioner No. 2- Mr. Vilas Wamanrao Lohote submitted that the O.P.No. 2 without making enquiry has illegally taken action against the petitioner. He relied on the decision of the following cases.
i. P. Sirajuddin etc., Vs. The State of Mdras, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 520 ii. State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1) iii. State of Bihar and another Vs. P.P. Sharma IAS and another, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 222 iv. Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat, 1992 CRI . L.J 2377
Thus, relying on the same, the petitioner No. 2 submitted that the Forum has not properly considered the case of the complainants and documents filed on record & erred in rejecting the application for amendment. He requested that the said application may be granted by setting aside the impugned order. He also filed today the copies of other documents as per accompanying list. He submitted that as per said documents the State Information Commission gave certain direction to the O.P.No. 2 but he has not complied with said direction. He also submitted that the limitation is continuing for claiming relief from the O.P. No.2 and therefore, the Forum has erred in holding that the application is made belatedly.
6. Advocate Mr. Poharkar who represented the O.P.No. 1 supported the impugned order and submitted that the Forum has properly considered all the aspects of the case and rightly rejected the application. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. 2009 DGLS (SC) 1362. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that amendment which is necessary of determination of real question in controversy has to be allowed. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the amendment application should not be undertaken in casual manner and that amendment should never be allowed if it is malafide, worthless and /or dishonest.
Therefore, the learned advocate of the respondent No. 1 submitted that the revision petition may be dismissed.
7. In the instant case the first and foremost question involved is as to whether there is relationship of consumer and service provider in between petitioners and O.P. No. 2 for claiming reliefs against the O.P. No 2 by way of amendment. We find that prima facie there is as no such relation of consumer and service provider in between them. Thus we find that the Forum has no jurisdiction to grant any relief under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the O.P. No. 2. Hence, application made for amendment seeking relief against the O.P. No. 2 has been rightly rejected by the Forum on that ground.
8. Secondly, we also find that the complaint was filed on 25/04/2012 against the O.P. Nos. 1&2 and in that complaint relief was sought against the O. P. No. 1- Bank only. The application for amendment was made on 20/03/2015 for seeking relief against the O. P. No. 2 for first time. We find that the said belated application made by the complainant has been rightly rejected by the Forum. The aforesaid all the decisions relied by the petitioners & referred to above are relating to the criminal cases and they are not relating to the consumer dispute. Therefore, we find that they are not applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the present case.
9. Thus we hold that the Forum has passed the correct, legal and proper order. We find no reason to interfere with the said order in this revision petition. The revision petition is devoid of merit and it deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER i. The revision petition is dismissed ii. No order as to cost in revision petition. iii. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost. [HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal] MEMBER