State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Nathuram Rajaram Nalawade vs Shri Jogindar Ramchandra Otari on 22 September, 2011
ROZNAMA (27/09/2011)
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/248
(Arisen out of Order Dated
31/01/2009 in Case No. 359/08 of District Satara)
1.
SHRI NATHURAM RAJARAM NALAWADE
2. VITTHAL SITARAM NIKAM, BOTH R/AT C/O,YASHODEEP NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT PHALTAN TAL PHALTAN, SATARA Maharastra ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI JOGINDAR RAMCHANDRA OTARI RAVIWAR PETH PHALTAN TAL PHALTAN SATARA Maharastra
2. THE CHAIRMAN,SHRI.DEEPAK BALASO CHOUDHARI YASHODEEP NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PHALTAN
3. THE VICE CHAIRMAN,SHRI SANGRAMSING DHANANJAY SAMPATRAO MAHAMULKAR .
4. THE DEPUTY MANAGER.SHRI.LAXMAN RAOBA JAGDALE R/AT-MAHATPURA PETH, PHALTAN, TAL-PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
5. THE DIRECTOR,SHRI VASANTRAO RAGHUNATH KHEDKAR R/AT PAWAR GALLI, PHALTAN,TAL-PHALTAN, DIST.-SATARA
6. SHRI.VISHWANATH ANNA BHOSALE R/AT-CHOUDHARWADI,TAL-PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
7. SHRI. DILIPKUMAR NEMCHAND SHAHA R/AT-BARAMATI CHOWK,OPP.CHANDAN LAUNDRY, PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
8. SHRI. BALASO LAXMAN PISAL R/AT-SAGUNAMATA NAGAR, MALTAN (PISAL GARAGE), TAL- PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
9. SHRI. NANDRAJ BAJIRAO NIMBALKAR R/AT-NEAR NILAM BUNGLOW, LAXMINAGAR, PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
10. SHRI. ASHOK KESHAVRAO PAWAR R/AT-PAWAR GALLII, PHALTAN, TAL-PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
11. SHOBHA NARAYAN PAWAR R/AT-
MANATPURA PETH, MALTAN, TAL- PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
12. SHRI. MINAJ MEHBOOB KHAN R/AT-
HADAKO COLONY, PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA
13. SHRI. KISHOR GHADGE R/AT-
BEHIND JAIN TEMPLE, DHANGARWADA ,PHALTAN, TAL-PHALTAN, DIST-SATARA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Mr.Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for the Appellants.
None for the Respondents.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
Most of the Respondents are served. Only Respondent Nos.2, 4, 12 and 13 were not served. Thereafter Respondent No.2 is also served by R.P.A.D. but office had sent notices by R.P.A.D. Since postal acknowledgement are not received back they are deemed to be served relying on the provisions led down in Sub-section (3) of the Consumer Protection Act 28-A since more than 30 days have lapsed. We declare these that three Respondents are deemed to be duly served. So that we can proceed with the matter.(2)
This appeal filed by original Opponent Nos.5 and 6 against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.359/2008 decided on 31.01.2009. By allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1- Joginder Ramchandra Otari, the District Forum directed the original Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 14 jointly and severally to refund the maturity amount in respect of deposit receipts bearing nos.1499, 1548, 1566, 1445 and 1545 with interest @ 9% per annum, the District Forum also awarded `1,000/-
towards costs and `1,000/- for mental harassment. Aggrieved by this award the original Opponent nos.5 and 6 have filed this appeal.
(3)This is a case wherein deposits were kept by Respondent No.1/original Complainant in Yashodeep Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Appellants and other Opponents were directors of the said Society. Society had not refunded back the deposits of the Complainant on maturity and therefore he filed consumer complaint and that was allowed and award was passed against the Directors of the Society including the Society to refund monies on maturity. Aggrieved by this order the Opponent Nos.5 and 6 have filed this appeal.
(4)The contention raised in this appeal is about the fact that the Appellants were not given chance by the District Forum to submit their written version and they were not heard. Their further contention was that both the Appellants had resigned from the Board of Directors of the Society on 03.04.2006 and 14.01.2008 respectively. This fact was not taken into account by the District Forum since the District Forum did not accept the written version sought to be tendered by the Appellants on 30.01.2009 i.e. one day before the judgement was delivered by the District Forum. We are of the view that in not giving the opportunity to the Appellants to contest the matter there was occasioned miscarriage of justice and to give fair opportunity to both the Appellants to present their case, we are inclined to allow this appeal partly by remanding the complaint back to District Forum for fresh trial as far as these two Appellants are concerned. In the circumstances we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Impugned judgement and award passed as against these two appellants only is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Complainant No.359/2008 stands remitted back to the District Forum as against these two Appellants only and the Appellants should be allowed to file written version, affidavits and documents, if any and the Forum shall rehear the complaint.
(iv) Rest of the judgement and award passed against the Chairman and other Directors of the Society stands intact.
(v) Costs deposited by the Appellants be refunded back to them.
(vi) On receipt of this order, the Forum shall issue notice to both the parties involved in this matter.
(vii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 22nd September, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep