State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Ramesh G. Tepale vs Solapur Zilla Audougik Bank Ltd. on 21 September, 2011
A-874/2004 Dk K 26/09/2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/04/917
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/04/2004 in Case No. CC/03/883 of District Solapur)
1. SHRI. RAMESH G.
TEPALE
1134, KASABA PETH,
BARSHI, SOLAPUR.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SOLAPUR ZILLA
AUDOUGIK BANK LTD.
SOLAPUR.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar
PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
None is present for
the appellant as well as for the respondent.
ORDER
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal has been pending in this Commission since 2004. On finding that this is one of the unattended appeals lying in this Commission, this appeal was placed before us on 01/08/2011 for disposal. On that date, we had directed office to issue notices to both the parties. Accordingly on 16/08/2011 office had sent notices to both the parties which were made returnable today. Today also we are finding that none is present for the appellant as well as for the respondent. We therefore decide to dispose off the appeal on merits.
2. This appeal has been filed by org.
complainant whose complaint No.883/2003 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur by judgement and order dated 17/04/2004.
3. Upon perusal of the judgement in question and documents and affidavits placed on record, we are finding that the appellant/org. complainant had filed complaint in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur vide complaint No.883/2003. In the complaint, he had impleaded Chairman, Solapur Zilla Audougik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Branch Officer, Solapur Zilla Audougik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Branch Barshi as opponents. He had filed consumer complaint for getting refund of deposit he had kept with the Co-operative Bank. On perusal of the record, we find that said Bank was under liquidation. The Government had appointed Liquidator on the said Bank. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was of the view that before filing consumer complaint against the Liquidator appointed by the Government, permission of the Co-operation Department is essential pre-requisite and since no such permission was taken, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that the complaint cannot lie against the Liquidator on that ground itself. Therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was pleased to reject the complaint by passing the impugned order. Against that order, this appeal has been preferred.
4. We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just, proper and sustainable in law. Before proceeding against the Liquidator appointed by the Government, aggrieved party has to seek permission of the Co-operation Department under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Since, this permission was essential pre-requisite and since it was not taken by the complainant/appellant herein, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no option, but to reject the complaint. So, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is appearing to be just, proper and cannot be called in any question on any ground in this appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 21st September 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd