State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Radhesham Laxminarayan Goenka vs Chandu Stores & Ors. on 18 October, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal No. A/00/1829 & 1830
(Arisen
out of Common Order Dated 11/09/2000 in Case No.CC/00/186 & 187 of
District Forum, Akola)
1.
Goenka Cutpiece Stores, Akola
Through Owner
Radhesham Laxminarayan Goenka
Nanabhai Plots, Amrutwadi,
Akola
. Appellant
( In Appeal No. A/00/1829)
1.
Radhesham Laxminarayan Goenka
Nanabhai Plots, Amrutwadi,
Akola
. Appellant
( In Appeal No. A/00/1830)
Versus
1.
Chandu Stores
Opp. Jain Mandir, Tajnapeth
Akola
Through:
2.
Praveenbhai Keshavlal Shah
R/o Sneha Apartments, 3rd
Floor
Shastri Nagar, Akola
3.
Maheshbhai Keshavlal Shah
R/o Siddha Apartments
Shastri Nagar, Akola . Respondents
( In Appeal Nos.A/00/1829 & 1830)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.M. Shembole Presiding
Member
Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal Member
Hon'ble Mr N. Arumugam Member
PRESENT:
Adv.Mr M S
Sambare
......for the Appellant
Adv.Mr S B Solat
......for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble Presiding Member The challenge in these appeals is the common judgement and order dtd.11.09.2000 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola in complaint Nos. CC/00/186 & 187, dismissing both the complaints.
Appeal No.A/00/1829 is filed by original complainant in complaint No. CC/00/186 whereas appeal No.A/00/1830 is filed by original complainant in complaint No.CC/00/187. Since the issue involved in these appeals is the same, we have decided it to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgement.
Brief facts, giving rise to these appeals are as under:-
1. Respondent / o.p.
No.1 Chandu Stores runs grocery business at Akola. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the proprietors of respondent No.1. According to the complainants, respondent accept the deposits and pay interest. Therefore, the complainants / appellants deposited the amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively with the respondents. It was agreed by the respondents to repay the amount on demand with interest @ 1.70 p.m. Thereafter, part payment was made and also some amount of interest and deposit receipts were issued for balance amount and it was agreed to repay the balance amount with interest within two years, etc. But the respondents failed to repay the amount. Therefore, on 09.02.2000 the appellants by separate notice demanded balance amount with interest to the respondents. But respondents failed to comply with the notice. Therefore, the appellants filed separate complaints before District Consumer Forum, Akola.
2. The respondents resisted the complaints by their written versions, contending, inter alia, that no such money lending transaction was there. It is contended that respondent never entered into such agreement getting the amount deposited. Further it is contended that the complainants are not the consumers and therefore, the complaints are not maintainable, etc. It is submitted to dismiss the complaints.
3. On hearing both the sides, considering the documents and evidence on record, the District Consumer Forum, Akola by the common judgement, dismissed both the complaints on the ground that there are complicated questions involved in the complaints and as such the same cannot be decided by the Forum and if complainants want they may file civil suit, etc.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the same judgement & order, the complainants have filed these separate appeals.
5. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the copy of impugned judgement & order and also documents, copies of complaint, written versions.
6. Mr Sambare Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that as the respondents used to receive the deposit and pay the interest, the complainants have deposited the amount but, according to him, it was not money lending transaction. He has fairly conceded that the complainants are not having money lending licence under Bombay Money Lenders Act. Whereas, Mr Solat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that if the complainants had deposited the money with the respondent, it was being money lending transaction, the same cannot be legalized. When, admittedly, the complainants are not having any licence under Bombay Money Lenders Act, so also the respondents are not legally entitled to get such deposits, the complainants / appellants cannot claim any amount, etc.
7. We find much force, in the submission of Mr Solat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. If the complainants would have deposited any amount with the respondents for getting interest it can be inferred that it was money lending transaction that it being without valid licence, it was illegal transaction, which cannot be legalized. Hence, it is obvious that the complainants / appellants are not entitled for any claim.
8. Moreover, considering the facts, the complainants also cannot be considered as the consumers so as to entertain the complaints under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, on any count, though it is observed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola that complicated questions are involving in the matter and same cannot be decided by the Forum, complaints itself are being not tenable, the District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaints. We find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
9. In the result, the appeals are being devoid of any merit, deserve to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER i.
Both the appeals are dismissed.
ii.
No order as to cost.
iii.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
Delivered on 18.10.2011.
[ HON'BLE S.M. SHEMBOLE] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ HON'BLE N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj