State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil, Dist. Sah. ... vs Vasant Dada Shetakari Sahakari Bank ... on 15 February, 2011
BEFORE THE HON BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Complaint Case No. CC/09/159 1. Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil, Dist. Sah. Path Sanstha Ltd., Jaysingpur, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur. Through Senior Clerk Shri. Sagar Devappa Hupre, R/o. Rui, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur Maharashtra ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Vasant Dada Shetakari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sangli Through Liquidator C. S. No. 13604/77, Sangli-Miraj Road, Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 2. Liquidator Committee, Vasant Dada Shetkari Sah. Bank Ltd., Sangli a) V.P. Patil (President), b)B.B.Yadav(Member),c)J.P.Shinde(Member) Sangli Maharashtra 3. Vasant Dada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sangli Branch Sangli Branch Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur Maharashtra 4. Shri. Madanrao Vishwanathrao Patil R/o. Vijay Bungalow, Vasant Colony, Market Yard, Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 5. Shri. Narsgond Satgonda Patil R/o Nandre, Tal. Miraj, Dist.Sangli Maharashtra 6. Shri. Suresh Adgonda Patil R/o. Indira Niwas, South Shivaji Nagar, Maharashtra 7. Shri. Amarnath Sadashiv Patil R/o. Sadashiv 4 Shniwar Peth, Madhavnagar Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 8. Shri. Kiran Rajaram Jagdana R/o. 1113, Khanbhag, Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 9. Shri. Arvind Shamrao Patil R/o. Padmale, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 10. Shri. Anandrao Maruti Patil R/o. Sangliwadi, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 11. Shri. Suresh Jingonda Patil R/o. Samdoli, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 12. Shri. Shripal Nemgonda Birnale R/o. Mouje Digraj, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtr 13. Shri. Sarjerao Sakharam Patil R/o. Kavthepiran, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 14. Shri. Niwas Dattjirao Deshmukh R/o. Shirala, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 15. Shri. Dattatrya Shripati Survayanshi R/o. Ankolkhop, Tal. Palus, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 16. Sou. Babytai Maruti Patil R/o. Kamanwes, Mangalwar Peth, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 17. Sou. Vandana Sambhaji Patil R/o. Kavthepiran, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Sangli Maharashtra 18. Shri. Sudhakar Dhondiram Aarte R/o. Kasbedigraj, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 19. Shri. Gajanan Laxmanrao Gavli R/o. 112 Gavli galli Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 20. Shri. Mujeer Aabbas Jamblikar R/o. 404, Khanbhag Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 21. Shri. Bharat Mahedeo Patil R/o. Budgaon, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 22. Shri. Satish Appaso Birnale R/o. Vasant Colony, Vasant Market Yard, Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra 23. Shri. Vijay Virupakash Ghware R/o. Uttar Shivaji Nagar, Sangli, Dist. Sangli Sangli Maharashtra 24. Shri. Ashok Krishna Phawade R/o. 1357, B, Risala Road, Sangli, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT: Mr.Chougule,Advocate, Proxy for Yogesh A. Maukavale, Advocate for the Complainant Mr.M.Y. Tamhankar, Advocate for the Opponent nos.4 to 13, 15, 18 to 24. None for other Opponents. ORDER
Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar Honble Member:
(1)Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagri Sahakari PatsansthaLtd., Jaysingpur, Taluka Sirol, District Sangli has filed the consumer complaint on
02.09.2009 which is numbered as Consumer Complaint No.159/2009.
(2)The facts of the complaint can be summarized as under:
Complainant is the Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The objectives of the Complainant is to take deposits from its members and advance loans to its members. The Complainant Society had deposited following amounts with the Opponent which is also a registered Society under the Provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960:
Sr. No. Deposit Receipt No. Date of deposit Deposit Amount (in `) Interest due upto 30.04.2009 (in `)
1. 7623
11/06/08 2,78,296 16,972
2. 7624 25/06/08 95,500 5,824
3. 7668 10/07/08 15,03,344 91,683
4. 7669 10/07/08 10,02,229 61,122
5. 7670 10/07/08 10,02,229 61,122 6 7671 10/07/08 88,196 5,379
7. 7672 11/07/08 98,000 5,977 Total 40,67,794 2,48,069 The Complainant contended that they have demanded the deposit amounts along with interest from the Opponent Bank. However, the Opponent Bank failed to pay the amount. Hence, they have issued notice through Advocate asking for the payment of the amounts. However, the Opponent Bank has not paid the amount and hence, the Complainant Society has filed a consumer complaint for the deficiency in service against the Opponent. The Complainant prayed that they are entitled for the following amounts, i.e.:
` 40,67,694/-
principal deposit amount, ` 2,48,079/-
interest upto 30.04.2009, ` 98,827/-
balance amount in current account and ` 2,000/-
Advocate notice expenses,
-----------------
`44,16,600/-
Total amount.
========== Hence, they prayed that the opponent may please be directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of `44,16,600/-, compensation of `50,000/-
for agony, `5,00,000/-
towards deficiency in service and `25,000/-
as costs.(3)
Opponents were duly served to file their written version. Opponent no.5 had filed written version stating that the application filed by the Complainant is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file the complaint against the Opponent. That the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That the Complainant has deposited the amount with the Opponents for a commercial purpose i.e. banking business and hence, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. The Opponent bank is in liquidation. The Reserve Bank of India had cancelled the banking activity of the opponent and prohibited the Opponents from paying the amount except as provided and hence, they are not able to return the deposits. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. The Complainant had not complied with the Provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. Hence, Opponent no.5 prayed that the complaint filed by the Complainant may please be dismissed.(4)
The Opponent Nos.4, 20, 23, 11, 6, 9, 8 and 22, 10, 21, 7, 24, 15, 19 and 12 have filed pursis stating therein that their written version is as per the written version of Opponent no.5.(5)
The Opponents 2 and 3 have filed their written version denying the contentions of the Complainant and requested for dismissal of complaint.(6)
The Complainant Society has filed its evidence along with affidavit. Similarly, Opponents have also filed their evidence on affidavit.
(7)The Complainant has filed written brief of arguments, similarly the Opponents have also filed written brief of arguments.
(8)On the basis of pleadings of both the parties we frame following points for our consideration:
Sr.No. Issue Finding
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
: Does not survive
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover the amount from the Opponents?
: No
(iii) What order?
: As per final order below R E A S O N S:
(9)Admittedly the Complainant is a Co-operative Credit Society established under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Opponent Nos.2(a),
(b) and (c) are the members of the Liquidator Committee.
Opponent No.1 is a Bank and Opponent Nos.4 to 24 are the ex-directors of the Opponent Bank. The prime object of the Complainant Society is to accept the deposits from the members and other partners to make advances to the members for their financial upliftment. The Complainant accordingly made the deposits as per the table given below:
Sr. No. Deposit Receipt No. Date of deposit Deposit Amount (in `) Intrest due upto (30.04.2009) (in `)
1. 7623
11/06/08 2,78,296 16,972
2. 7624 25/06/08 95,500 5,824
3. 7668 10/07/08 15,03,344 91,683
4. 7669 10/07/08 10,02,229 61,122
5. 7670 10/07/08 10,02,229 61,122 6 7671 10/07/08 88,196 5,379
7. 7672 11/07/08 98,000 5,977 Total 40,67,794 2,48,069 It is the contention of the Complainant that it has invested the amount for maintaining liquidity. Looking into the nature of the deposits made by the Complainant in Opponent Bank, i.e. to maintain liquidity and, thus, it being a part of their banking business, the services of the Opponent to keep liquidity deposits are also hired for a commercial purpose. Therefore, the Complainants are not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity). Further more, if the provisions of Banking Regulation Act are not attracted in case of the Complainant Credit Society (Patsanstha), still the issue as to whether the deposits were kept with the permission of Registrar of the Cooperative Societies or not will go to the root of the case. If such deposits are kept without such permission, the transaction itself will be illegal and for which no help of the consumer fora could be availed. Considering the fact that these issues are not addressed properly by the Complainant and there is neither any statement in the pleading nor there is any material placed on record, the issue as to whether Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act as to whether present dispute could be a consumer dispute; need to be kept open. We, for the reasons stated hereinafter, on point no.(ii), recording our finding in the negative, infra; and, therefore, we find it proper, in the circumstances mentioned earlier to record our finding on point no.(i) as, does not survive.
(10)As regards the Complainants claim that the action of the Opponent Bank in not returning the deposits amounts to deficiency in service and hence, they be directed to repay the amount, the Opponents vehemently opposed the contention of the Complainants Society on the ground that the Opponent Bank is under liquidation by order dated 16.02.2009 i.e. before filing the complaint by the Complainant on 02.09.2009. The Opponent Nos.2(a), (b) & (c) are the members of the Liquidator Committee, so it is clear that before filing the complaint the Government of Maharashtra has appointed a Liquidator committee. So it is clear that before filing the complaint, the Government of Maharashtra has appointed liquidator on the Bank u/sec 110-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. As regards the liability of Opponent nos. 4 to 24, the Complainant has not produced any evidence u/sec.110-A of the Maharasthra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. As regards all Opponent nos. 4 to 24, the Complainant has not produced any evidence that there is a deficiency in service on their part.
(11)As per the provisions of Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, whenever there is any claim over the society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and which has put to liquidation it has to be filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under section 107 of Maharashtra State Co.operative Societies Act. The Complainants though have contended that they have filed an application under section 107 of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar they have not produced any evidence thereof. The Complainant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in a Civil Appeal No.92/1998 in the case of The Secretary, Thurumarugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society V/s. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs. & Ors. decided on 11/12/2003. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the authority quoted by the Complainant is not applicable in the present case. In short, the Complainant has failed to establish their case and hence, answer to Issue no.(ii) is in the negative.
(12)For the reasons stated above, and findings recorded on point nos.(i) and
(ii), supra, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) The complaint is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 15th February, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep