Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Korangla Vivid Karyakari Seva Sah vs Dhondiram Bhaurao Jangale, on 9 June, 2009

                                  1                        F.A.No. :1667/2004



                               Date of filing:15.09.2004
                               Date of order:09.06.2009
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

F.A. NO.: 1667 OF 2004
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. :170 OF 2003
DISTRICT FORUM :LATUR.

1. Chairman,
  Korangla Vivid Karyakari Seva Sah.
  Society Ltd., Korangala, Tq.Ausa,
  Dist.Latur.

2. Secretary,
  Korangala Vivid Karyakari Seva Sah.
  Society Ltd., Korangala,Tq.Ausa,
  Dist.Latur.                                 ...APPELLANTS
                                              (Org.Opponents)

VERSUS

1. Dhondiram Bhaurao Jangale,
  R/oKorangala, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.

2. Ex-Chairman,
  R/o Korangala, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.

3. Ex-Secretary,
  Shripati Bhole,
  R/o Kalmata, Post Bhada,
  Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.                       ...RESPONDENTS
                                          (No.1-Org.Complainant,
                                          No.2 & 3-Org.Opp.No.3 & 4)

           Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
                 Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Present : None for appellants, Adv.Shri.A.K.Jawalkar for respondent No.1, None for respondent No.2 & 3.

O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. The present appeal is filed by original opponent No. 1 & 2 Chairman & Secretary of Korangala Vivid Karyakari Seva Sah.Society against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2004 in complaint case No.170/03 passed by District Forum, Latur.

2. Respondent No.1/Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, he is having agricultural land at Korangala, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. He is a member of appellant society. Appellant No.1 is the Chairman and appellant No.2 is Secretary of the society. It is contended that respondent No.2 & 3 are the Ex.Chairman and Ex.Secretary of the society. It is contended that complainant/respondent No.1 never applied for the loan before the society and never raised the loan. It is contended that on 27.4.2003 he received notice from recovery officer demanding amount of Rs.53,308/-. It is contended that he made enquiry with the present appellants, he came to know that the alleged transaction had taken place in the period of respondent No.2 & 3. It is contended that when he asked for record he was told that record is in the custody of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ausa as the cases have been filed against respondent No.2 & 3 in Criminal Court and Co-operative Court. It is contended that complainant/respondent No.1 came to know that respondent No.2 & 3 prepared false papers by putting his signatures and withdrew the amount showing the loan amount in his name. It is contended that cheque No.006843 & cheque No.006844 for Rs.15,700/- and Rs.19,800/- respectively, both of dated 29.7.2000 had been issued in his name by respondent No.2 & 3 and amount is withdrawn. It is contended that he never opened the account in any bank. It is contended that he had filed application on 30.7.2003 before Asstt.Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ausa for fraud. It is contended 3 F.A.No. :1667/2004 that one Shri.R.M.Jogdand, Asstt.Registrar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He disposed his application stating that there are signatures in the name of Dhondiram Bhaurao Jangale on the counter cheques. It is contended that he had filed complaint before Sub-Registrar, Co- operative Societies. He also filed application before Collector and requested for issuing no dues certificate. It is contended that respondent No.2 & 3 had withdrawn the amount by putting his false signatures and they are responsible for amount in question. Complainant/Respondent No.1 never raised the loan. Thus complainant approached the Forum for directing opponents to pay Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation.

3. The appellants appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. They are not at dispute that they are the Chairman and Secretary and respondent No.2 & 3 are Ex.Chairman and Ex.Secretary of the society. It is contended that as per record complainant/respondent No.1 had raised the loan. He had made application for loan and thus recovery officer issued him notice for recovery of the loan in question. Transaction has been taken place in the period of respondent No.2 & 3.

4. Respondent no.2 & 3 also appeared and resisted the claim. It is contended that complainant/respondent No.1 had filed the application for raising loan for development of his agricultural land and he had raised the loan. The record is in the custody of society. They did not commit any fraud. They did not raise the amount by putting false signatures of respondent No.1. It is also contended that cases are pending in the Co-operative Court and Criminal Court. Thus complaint is not tenable.

5. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and quashed and set aside the recovery notice for Rs.53,308/- issued by appellants and respondent No.2 & 3 through recovery officer. Forum also directed respondent No.2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay amount of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Latur, original opponent No. 1 & 2 came in appeal.

7. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents. None appeared on behalf of appellants. Learned counsel Shri.A.K.Jawalkar appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3. We heard learned counsel Shri.Jawalkar for complainant/respondent No.1. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that complainant raised complicated question of facts. Complainant has contended that he never applied for loan and he was not sanctioned loan by the society. It is his contention that respondent No.2 & 3 got issued two cheques dated 29.06.2000 in his name and had withdrawn the amount in question by putting his signatures. It is also his contention that respondent No.2 & 3 in collusion with each other put his false signatures on record for getting the amount. As the complainant has raised complicated questions of fact allegedly fraud, which can not be decided by this Commission in summary jurisdiction. The enormous evidence shall be required in the present case especially in respect of allegations of fraud and forgery made by complainant in his complaint which have been denied by respondent No.2 & 3. The Forum below did not consider this aspect and erred in deciding the complaint on presumptions and assumptions. The Forum should have dismissed the complaint giving opportunity to the complainant for approaching Civil 5 F.A.No. :1667/2004 Court or any other appropriate Forum for relief claimed. Accordingly we are inclined to allow the appeal. We pass the following order.

                               O   R       D   E   R


   1.    Appeal is allowed.

2. The impugned judgment and order passed by Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. Complaint stands dismissed.

4. Dismissal however will not come in the way of complainant in case complainant approaches Civil Court or any other appropriate court.

5. In the circumstances parties to bear their own cost.

6. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

7. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora                               S.G.Deshmukh,
     Member                            Presiding Judicial Member

Mane