State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Laxman Maruti Jadhav & Ors. vs . Shirish Madhavrao Wagh & Ors. on 21 February, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/802
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/04/2009 in Case
No. 81/2009 of District Satara)
1.LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV AT POST ATIT, TAL AND DIST. SATARA SATARA Maharastra
2. Bajirao Krishna Yadav AT & Post Atit, Tal. Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
3. Jaihind Ganapati Jadhav R/at AT & post Atit, Tal. & Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
4. Amrut Jaysing Jadhav R/at At & Post Atit, Tal & Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
5. Balwant Gangaram Yadav R/at At & Post Atit, Tal & Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
6. Dr. Ajit Mohanrao Jadhav R/at At & Post Atit, Tal. & Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHIRISH MADHAVRAO WAGH AT & POST KOPARDE, TAL.SATARA , DIST. SATARA SATARA Maharastra
2. Mrs. Shobha Madhavrao Wagh R/at At & Post Koparde, Tal & Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
3. Datta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
4. Dhanaji Ramchandra Gurav Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
5. Mrs. Manisha Dhanaji Gurav Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
6. Mrs. Aboli Amrut Ghorpade Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
7. Rajendra Laxman Bhingare Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
8. Adhik Kaka Gaikwad Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
9. Tanaji Bandu Mane Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra
10. Suresh Raghunath Yadav Atit, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara Satara Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s) ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.N.K. Kharade, Advocate for respondent Nos.1&2.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.Anant Vadgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Kharade, Advocate for respondent Nos.1&2. Appeal as against other respondents except respondent Nos.1&2/original complainants stood dismissed as not pressed.
2. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/04/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.81/2009, Shirish Madhavrao Wagh & Anr. V/s. Datta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari patsanstha Maryadit, through its Chairman-Mr.Laxman Maruti Jadhav & Ors., by District Forum, Satara. Appellants who are one of the Directors, since fastened with joint and several liability as per the impugned order preferred this appeal.
3. At the outset, we must observe referring to the cause title of the complaint that the complaint is filed only against the Datta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari patsanstha Maryadit and said Patsanstha is shown as represented by its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Manager and Directors including the appellants. Thus, it is filed only against Patsanstha and not against its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Manager and Directors. In this background, since the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Manager, and its Directors were not parties in their individual capacities but they were shown as representing their organization, namely the Patsanstha;
to pass any order much less fastening joint and several liability on them is, per se, illegal and not proper.
4. As far as fastening joint and several liabilities on the appellants, they have placed their reliance on the judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of Sou.Varsha Ravindra Isai V/s. Sou.Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari & Ors., AIR 2011 BOMBAY
6. We find said reliance is relevant. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1&2/original complainants conceded that though there was report filed by the Auditor, there was no formal inquiry made by the Registrar under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and fastened the liabilities on the appellants. Under the circumstances, we find that the joint and several liabilities on the appellants/Directors cannot be fastened. Appeal is therefore required to be allowed to this limited extent and the impugned order is to be set aside as against the appellants. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside as against the appellants. Rest of the order is confirmed.
2. In the circumstance, no order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 21st February 2013.
[HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar] MEMBER dd