National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hanuman Sahakari Pani Pruvatha Sanstha ... vs Ramchandra Bapuso Khade on 18 November, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & ORS Through Secretary, Shri Shivram Bhauso Bhandigare
Talashi. Tal Radhanagari Kolhaur MAHARASTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMCHANDRA BAPUSO KHADE & ORS Resident of Talashi , Taluka Radhanagari , Kolhapur MAHARASTRA 2. - - ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2613 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2614 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMCHANDRA BAPUSO KHADE TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2615 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHANKAR GANU METIAL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2616 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANOHAR BAPU ANGAJ TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2617 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NARAYAN RAMCHANDRA PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. YESHWANT NARAYAN PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2619 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DATTATRAYA GOPAL PAWAR TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2620 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DILIP RAMCHANDRA KHADE TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2621 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ANANDA BAPU ANGAJ TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG PARSU CHAVAN TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2623 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HARI KISHNA ANGAJ TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ANANDA TUKARAM RAUT TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2625 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAYSING BAPU KHADE TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2626 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SADASHIV TUKARAM RAUT TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2627 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG SHANKAR PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VITHABAI SADASHIV PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG VISHNU SUTAR TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2630 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVRAM RAMA PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2631 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GOVIND BALA JADHAV TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BHAGWAN LAXMAN PATIL TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2633 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2008 in Appeal No. 1265/2003 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. HANUMAN SAHAKARI PANI PRUVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT & 10 ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY SHRI SHIVRAM BHAUSO BHADIGARE, TALASHI, TAL. RADHANAGARI,
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DAMODAR TUKARAM & 2 ORS. TALASHI, TALUKA RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Shri Pravin Satale, Adv. For the Respondent : For Respondent Nos. 1 to 21: Shri Mithilesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent No. 22 &23: Exparte
Dated : 18 Nov 2015 ORDER
Pronounced on 18th November, 2015
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER All these revision petitions arise out of common order of State Commission involving similar facts and question of law, hence, decided by common order.
These revision petitions have been filed by petitioner against order dated 4.6.2008 passed by State Commission in FA No. 1265 of 2003 in Consumer Complaint Nos. 430 to 450 of 2002- Hanuman Sahakari Pani Purvatha Sanshta Maryadit & Ors. VS. Ramchandra Bapuso Khade & Ors. by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing all complaints was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents became members of Society-Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 for getting water supply for their land. Opposite Party No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 is Chairman, Opposite party No. 3-Vice Chairman and Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 12/ Petitioner Nos. 3 to 11 are Directors and Opposite Party No. 13 is Secretary of the said Society. Complainants mortgaged their lands to the land development Bank for raising loan for the formation of society and execution commissioning, and erection of irrigation Scheme for the purpose of providing water supply and accordingly the land development Bank have given finance for making the irrigations scheme operational in the form of loan to the Respondent Society. The said Scheme became operational in the year 2000 and despite the complainant made repeated oral as well as written request to the OP, they did not provide water supply to the complainants land, and therefore complainants could not take sugarcane crop in their respective land as the result of which they have suffered financial loss. The complainants mortgaged their lands and raised loans for the irrigations scheme of the OP to get water supply and due to non- supply of the water by the OP society, the complainant have suffered financial loss and therefore they are unable to refund the loan instalments to the land development Bank. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. Opposite Parties resisted complaints and submitted that complainants have mortgaged their lands to land development Bank for raising loan for the execution commissioning and erection of the water irrigation scheme. They have also stated that the complainants are the members of the Respondents society. However, they have harped on the non-compliance of the rules and bylaws of the society for the water supply by the complainants and hence due to such a non-compliance water supply could not made to them. They have also stated that OP society had sent intimation letter to the complainants on 26.7.2002 informing them to fill-up the printed form and comply with the rules and bylaws of the society and then only they shall be entitled to get the water. Similarly, the OP in their submission have stated that the complainants in the year 1998 had submitted written complaints to the D.D.R. Cooperative Society Kolhapur that since they have not received water supply on that date and hence do not wish to take the water supply from the OP and hence their lands be made emcumbrance free from any mortgage. The same Application given to the OP society and hence the complainants cannot claim the water supply. The OP(s) have further stated that due to political rivalry between the complainant and the OP and with view to cause harassment to the OP, the complainants have not taken the water supply from the irrigations scheme. On the contrary the complainants have tried to create problems in the functioning of the OP society. The OP(s) have also raised the point of maintainability of the complaint before these Forums. The Cooperative Court and similarly situated offices are the only competent Forums to decide the dispute between the parties as it is dispute touching the business of the society and they have submitted that this Forum have no jurisdiction to try the dispute. They have also stated that the complaint is expressly barred by the other law. It was further submitted that if complainants are ready to comply with terms & conditions, Rules & Regulations of the Society, Society is ready and willing to supply water to the complainants even today. Complainants have not impleaded all necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of complaints. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaints against Opposite Party No. 13 and allowed complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 12 and directed them to pay each complainant Rs. 20,000/- as compensation, Rs. 300/- towards cost of the complaint, Rs. 1,000/- as lawyer's fee and Rs. 500/- for mental agony and it was further observed that if complainants comply with Rules & Regulations of the Society, they will be entitled to receive water from Opposite party within three days from such compliance. Appeals filed by Opposite Parties were dismissed by State Commission vide impugned order against which these revision petitions have been filed.
Respondent No. 22 & 23 did not appear and they were proceeded exparte.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perusal record.
Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that in spite of no jurisdiction in Consumer Fora for entertaining complaints and in spite of request by complainants for not interested in taking water and in spite of no proof of loss, Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaints and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals, hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that revisional court has limited jurisdiction and order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petitions be dismissed.
It is true that revisional court has limited jurisdiction and can exercise limited jurisdiction only if State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Admittedly, complainants are members of opposite party-Society which was formed for supply of water to complainant's land and for that purpose, loan was obtained by complainants by mortgaging their land. Opposite Party specifically pleaded that consumer fora has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding disputes between Members of the Society and for redressal of their grievances, they could have approached to Cooperative Court under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Learned District Forum observed that there was relationship of consumer and service provider between complainants and opposite party-Society. This observation is not correct as it was a clear dispute between complainants and opposite party(s) touching business of the Society. Learned Karnataka State Commission in III (1994) CPJ 500- The Kulve Gram Seva Shahakari Sangha Ltd. Vs. Mahabaleshwar Ramakrishna Bhat; has held that as per Section 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, dispute was to be settled only by Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and complaint before Consumer Fora was not maintainable. Similar view was expressed by State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, in 1998 (1) CPR 630- Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shri Suryakant Ramchandra Gomase; in which it was observed that Consumer Fora was barred from entertaining any dispute between the Members and Society. This Commission in 1-1993(1) CPR 174- Dilip Bapat & Anr. Vs. Panchvati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.; held that complainants being Members of Cooperative Housing Society cannot raise dispute regarding payment of escalation in cost of construction before Consumer Fora and right forum for Members of Society to agitate their grievances is Cooperative Court under Co-operative Societies Act.
In the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that dispute among complainants and their Society regarding loss due to non-supply of water for irrigation of land could have been decided only under the Cooperative Societies Act and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and in such circumstances, as Fora below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, this Commission has power to set aside impugned order under revisional jurisdiction.
Perusal of record reveals that complainants by letter dated 1.11.1998 intimated to the Opposite Party -Society that they do not want to take water from the Society. They also gave similar intimation on 15.4.1998 to Branch Manager, Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development and on 27.4.1998 to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies which shows that complainants in the year 1998 intimated that they are not willing to take water from Opposite Party-Society. In such circumstances, opposite party-Society was not under any obligation to supply water to the complainants.
Perusal of record further reveals that opposite party specifically pleaded that complainants were required to make application in writing as per bylaws for supply of water and complainants have not complied with necessary formalities. It appears that as complainants were reluctant in taking water from OP/Society, they did not fill up requisite forms for taking water and in such circumstances, OP has not committed any deficiency in not providing irrigation facility to the complainants. Learned District Forum while allowing complaint directed Opposite Party to supply water within three days if complainants comply with Rules & Regulations of the Society which clearly proves that complainants did not comply with necessary formalities for supply of water and in such circumstances, complainants were not entitled to supply of water and claim for compensation for loss caused due to non- supply of water. Petitioners submitted that petitioner is ready to supply water even today if necessary formalities are complied with by complainants.
As far as compensation is concerned, Learned District Forum while granting compensation, observed as under:-"Ïn these complaints the respondents have not laid adequate evidence substantiating the claim made by them hence the claim made by them cannot be allowed and hence forum has reached to the conclusion that the grant of such a relief would neither be just nor the proper. However, in the matter the complainants have submitted the certificate issued by the Assistant Agriculture Officer, stating approximately what would have been the income had the sugarcane cultivating the land." It appears that without any cogent evidence only on the basis of certificate issued by Assistant Agriculture Officer which was not provided to OP for rebuttal, compensation has been allowed which could not have been allowed.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals and impugned order is liable to set aside.
Consequently, revision petitions filed by petitioners are allowed and impugned order dated 4.6.2008 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 1265 of 2003- Hanuman Sahakari Pani Purvatha Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. VS. Ramchandra Bapuso Khade & Ors. and order of District Forum dated 23.7.2003 in Consumer Complaint Nos. 430-450 of 2002- Ramchandra Bapuso Khade & Ors. VS. Hanuman Sahakari Pani Purvatha Sanstha Maryadit & Ors., is set aside and complaints stand dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
-sd/-
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER