State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Madanrao Vishwanathrao Patil And ... vs Trimbak Gajanan Kulkarni And Others on 16 April, 2012
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/68
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 23/12/2010 in Case No. 270/2010 of District Sangli)
1.SHRI MADANRAO VISHWANATHRAO PATIL VIJAY BUNGALOW VASANT COLONY VASANT MARKET YARD SANGLI
2. SURESH ADGONDA PATIL INDIRA NIWAS, SOUTH SHIVAJI NAGAR, NEMINATH NAGAR, SANGLI.
3. NARASGONDA SATGONDA PATIL, R/OF:- NANDARE, TALUKA - MIRAJ DISTRICT - SANGLI
4. MUJIR ABBAS JAMBALIKAR, R/AT:- 404, KHANBHAG, SANGLI.
5. SHRIPAL NEMGONDA BIRNALE, R/OF:- MOUJE DIGRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI.
6. ARVIND SHAMRAO PATIL, R/OF:- PADMALE, TALUKA - MIRAJ DISTRICT - SANGLI.
7. KIRAN RAJARAM JAGADALE, R/OF:- 1113, KHANBHAG, JAGDALE GALLI, SANGLI.
8. ANANDRAO MARUTI PATIL, R/OF:- SANGALWADI, TALUKA - MIRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI.
9. AMARNATH SADASHIV PATIL, R/OF:- SADASHIV 4, SHANIWAR PETH, MADHAV NAGAR, SANGLI.
10. SUDHAKAR DHONDIRAM ARTE R/OF:- KASBE DIGRAJ, TALUKA - MIRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI.
11. SATISH APPASO BIRNALE, R/OF:- VASANT COLONY, VASANT MARKET YARD, SANGLI.
12. GAJANAN LAXMANRAO GAWALI, R/OF:- 112, GAWALI GALLI, SANGLI.
13. BHARAT MAHADEV PATIL, R/AT:- BUDHGAON, TALUKA - MIRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI
14. VIJAY VIRUPPAKSH GHEVARE, R/OF:- NORTH SHIVAJI NAGAR, SANGLI.
15. SURESH JINGONDA PATIL, R/AT:- SAMDOLI, TALUKA - MIRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI.
16. DATTATRAYA SHRIPATI SURYAWANSHI R/OF:- ANKALKHOP, TALUKA - PALUS, DISTRICT - SANGLI
17. SOU.
VANDANA SAMBHAJI PATIL AT POST KAVATHEPIRAN, TALUKA - MIRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI
18. NIVAS DATTATRAYA DESHMUKH AT POST SHIRALA, TALUKA - SHIRALA, DISTRICT - SANGLI
19. SARJERAO SAKHARAM PATIL, AT POST KAVATHEPIRAN, TALUKA - MIRAJ, DISTRICT - SANGLI.
...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. TRIMBAK GAJANAN KULKARNI R/OF:- GAJANAN KRIPA VIVEKANAND ROAD VITA TALUKA KHANAPUR DISTRICT - SANGLI
2. BEBETAI MARUTI PATIL R/O.KAMAN VESH MANGALWAR PETH, MIRAJ - 416 410.
3. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VASANTDADA SHETKARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.
SANGLI MIRAJ ROAD, SANGLI
4. ASHOK KRISHNA PHAWADE R/O.1357-B, RISAL ROAD, SANGLI ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Adv. Madhav Tamhankar for the Appellants Respondents Nos.1 and 2 absent Adv. S. A. Masal for the Respondent No.3 Adv. K. B. Shinde for the Respondent No.4 ORDER Per - Hon'ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 23/12/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum' for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.270 of 2010, Mr. Trimbak Gajanan Kulkarni Vs. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Others. By allowing the complaint filed by the original Complainant, namely - Mr. Trimbak Gajanan Kulkarni, who the Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) the District Forum directed the Opponent No.1 Bank and its Chairman and Directors jointly & severally to refund to the Complainant the fixed deposit amounts as per the rules applicable and also directed to pay `10,000/- by way of compensation besides costs of `5,000/-. As such 19 Directors of Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd., have filed this appeal challenging the said order.[2]
Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as under:-
The Complainant has filed a complaint against Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd., and its Chairman and Directors alleging deficiency in service on their part. The Complainant had deposited certain amount with the said Bank under fixed deposit and those fixed deposits (07 in number) had attained maturity between 16/11/2008 to 23/02/2009. Despite maturity of fixed deposits, the amounts were not refunded by the Bank and, therefore, a consumer complaint was filed by the Complainant against the Bank and its Chairman and Directors. Said consumer complaint was contested by the Bank and its Chairman and Directors and they pleaded that the Bank had gone in liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed on the Bank by the Government and, therefore, they are not liable to refund the amount to the Complainant. They pleaded that Directors are not responsible since now the Bank was under liquidation and the liquidator has taken over all the assets of the Bank.
However, while allowing the consumer complaint against the Bank and its Chairman and Directors, the District Forum turned down this plea of the Bank and its Chairman and Director and directed to refund the deposit as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this order, some of the Directors have filed this appeal.
[3] We heard oral submissions advanced by Adv. Madhav Tamhankar on behalf of the Appellants, Adv. S. A. Masal on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and Adv. K. B. Shinde on behalf of the Respondent No.4. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 chose to remain absent and did not advance oral submissions.
[4] We are finding that when a credit society or a co-operative bank goes in liquidation and a liquidator is appointed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Act, 1960 permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has to be specifically obtained either to file a proceeding or to continue the consumer dispute in a Consumer Forum. In the instant case, despite the fact that Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd., had gone into liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed and the liquidator was impleaded in the consumer complaint, permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section-107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not obtained before filing of the consumer complaint and on that ground itself the District Forum should have dismissed the consumer complaint. This Commission in the case of Shri Madan Rao and Ors. Vs. Dhansampada Nagari and Ors. ~ 2012-(1)-CPR-236 clearly laid down that permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is required to be obtained since a liquidator has been appointed on the Bank before the consumer complaint was filed. In this case, no permission was sought by the Complainant to file a consumer complaint from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as contemplated under Section-107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and, therefore, there has been violation of Section-107 of the said Act on the part of the Complainant and as such, the award passed by the District Forum against the Bank and its Chairman and Directors is appearing to be bad in law and same cannot be allowed to be sustained and as such the appeal will have to be allowed to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 23/Dec/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in Consumer Complaint No.270 of 2010 is hereby quashed and aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 16th April, 2012 [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member KVS