State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shrimanyogi Urban Co-Op. Credit vs Sagar on 6 August, 2024
1 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018
Date of Filing : 07.12.2018
Date of Disposal : 06.08.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF AUGUST 2024
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.2041 & 2042/2018
1. Shri. Shrimanyogi Urban Co-Op Credit
Society Ltd., Sankeshwara,
R/o: Gandhi Chowk,
Opp. Vittal Mandir, Sankeshwar,
Hukkeri Tq., Belagavi Dist.
Rep. by its Chairman,
Mahadev S/o Bandopant Davare,
Major, Occ:Business,
R/at Pinjar Galli, Sankeshwar,
Hukkeri Tq., Belagavi.
2. Shri. Shrimanyogi Urban Co-Op.
Credit Society Ltd., Sankeshwara,
R/o: Gandhi Chowk,
Opp. Vittal Mandir, Sankeshwar,
Hukkeri Tq., Belagavi Dist.
Rep. by its Secretary,
Dayanand S/o Shivaji Thorwat,
Major, Occ:Business,
R/A Pinjar Galli, Sankeshwar,
Hukkeri Tq, Balagavi. Common Appellants in both appeals
(By Adv.Sri.Kumar A Patil)
Vs
1. Praveen
2 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018
S/o Vasanth Devarushi,
Aged about 37 Years,
Occ:Service, R/at Honihalli,
Hukkeri Tq., Belagavi Dist.
2. Sulochana
W/o Vasanth Devarushi,
Aged about 60 Years,
Occ: Housewife, R/at Honihalli,
Hukkeri Tq, Belagavi. ..Respondents in A/2041/2018
1. Sagar
S/o Vasanth Devarushi,
Aged about 40 Years,
Occ:Service, R/at Honihalli,
Hukkeri Tq., Belagavi Dist.
2. Vaishali
W/o Sagar Devarushi,
Aged about 60 Years,
Occ Housewife, R/at Honihalli,
Hukkeri Tq. Belagavi. ..Respondents in A/2042/2018
(By Adv.Sri.Nagesh.M.Badiger)
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. These are the appeals filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OPs.1 & 2/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.24.04.2018 passed in CC/240 & 241/2017 on the file of Belagavi District Forum. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
3 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.24.04.2018 passed in CC/240 & 241/2017 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?
3. Learned counsel for Appellants/OPs.1 & 2 submit that the District Forum has committed grave error in entertaining the complaint, ignoring the provisions of Sec.24A of CPA 1986. The main contention of Appellants would be, Forum had allowed the application filed U/s.24A at the stage of admission itself without affording an opportunity to oppose. In our view considering the facts found from the enquiry, since the Complainants in CC/240/2017 have deposited Rs.20,000/- & Rs.40,000/- on 17.11.2008 & 05.04.2016 respectively and if we examined FD no.651 & 672, could see the maturity date of these FDs would be fall on 17.05.2015 & 05.04.2016. And further in CC/241/2017 Complainants have deposited Rs.40,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on 07.05.2012, 05.10.2009 & on 05.10.2009 under FD no.2191, 650 & 671 and the maturity date of these three FDS would be on 07.05.2013, 05.04.2016, 05.04.2016 respectively, suffice to hold that the Forum is 4 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018 justified to entertain the complaints and rightly condone the delay if any in respect of the FDr which according to Ops was not within time as stipulated under CPA, 1986. Further to be note down herein, the OP society is represented by its Chairman and Secretary and they in that capacity, with held the maturity value. In other words failed to release Rs.40,000/-, Rs.80,000/- , Rs.45,200/-, Rs.40,000/- & Rs.80,000/- respectively in favour of the respective Complainants, again, suffice to hold Forum as on the date of raising consumer complaint on 01.08.2017 had rightly allowed the application filed U/s.24A of CPA 1986 and proceed to enquire into the complaint, which cannot be now questioned in these appeals by OPs.
4. The next contention would be, the complaints are bad for non- joinder of Directors of the society, which in our view could not be available, since the Complainants being dominating litigants have chosen OPs.1 & 2 to seek reliefs. Further to be noted down being Chairman and Secretary of the society against whom an award could be passed which cannot be said bad for non joinder of either Treasurer or Directors of the society. In our view such parties could not be said either necessary or proper parties to enquire into the complaint cases to seek release of amount covered under FDR amount.
5 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018
5. Learned counsel submits, the decision reported in III (2005) CPJ 148 in the case between Prajakta Karkare vs. Vithal Madhav Rao, Kaslikar and Ors, wherein held - CPA 1986 Sec.2(1)(g) & 15
- deposit made with Registered society not refunded back - Forum held President and Treasurer jointly liable to refund the amount with interest. Further held no agreement between Complainants and Treasurers for refund of amount and no relationship of consumer and service provider exist between them, thereby held Treasurer of the society could not be personally held liable for refund of deposited amount - order against Treasurer set aside. In our view, on facts when Complainants have raised consumer complaint against the society represented by Chairman and Secretary, there is no legal impediment for them to refund the maturity value along with interest as awarded under order dtd.24.04.2018. We have to observe herein from the impugned order, nowhere find Forum, held liability of OPs.1 & 2 is joint and several and held their they are personally liable to pay the FDR amount. In such circumstances of the case, the ratio relied on, could not be applied to the impugned order. It is to be noted herein the District Forum has directed OPs.1 & 2 to pay respective matured FD amount as per agreed rate of interest from the date 6 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018 of deposit till maturity and directed to pay interest at 6% p.a. from the date of legal notice till the date of realisation and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and cost which in our view is most reasonable which does not call for any interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants placed an order dtd.01.09.2021 passed by Addl., Bench of this Commission in A/417/2021 in the case between Shri Shrimanyogi Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd., Sankeshwar Rep by its Chairman Mahadev Bandopant Davare vs. Praveen and others, wherein held, in para 3 "Of course, we agree with the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the Society is only liable to pay award amount irrespective of Board of Directors. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed-off with a direction to the District Commission to execute the order in complaint No.2092/2018 against the Society represented by its Secretary only for recovery of the award amount and complaint against this appellant is dismissed" has no relevance, since the appeals on hand are filed not only by Chairman but also by the Secretary of the said society and as already stated above the District Forum has no where held their liability is joint and several and they are 7 Appeal No.2041 & 2042/2018 personally liable to pay in their personal capacity on the ground that they indulge in swindling the fund of the Society but directed the society represented by Chairman and Secretary to pay the matured amount along with interest and also could be seen order relied on is decided by member alone. Hence, we proceed to dismiss the appeals with no order as to cost.
7. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
8. Keep the original order in A/2041/2018 and copy in connected A/2042/2018.
9. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*