State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ad. Kisanrao Dadu Shinde & Ors. vs Rajamati Yashwant Pawar & Ors. on 30 August, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/349
(Arisen out of Order Dated 18/03/2010 in Case
No. 13/2008 of District Sangli)
1.Ad. Kisanrao Dadu Shinde R/o. Jayashri Apartment, S. T. Colony, Vishrambag, Sangli.
Sangli Maharastra
2. Sanjay Vitthal Omase A/p Bedag, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli.
Sangli.
Maharashtra.
3. Ad. Anjali Pandurang Sadigale R/o. 29, Swapnatarang Bunglow, Government Colony, Vishrambag, Sangli.
Sangli Maharashtra.
4. Sou. Alka Kisanrao Shinde R/o. Jayashri Apartment, S. T. Colony, Vishrambag, Sangli.
Sangli.
Maharashtra.
...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Rajamati Yashwant Pawar, R/o. 8, Uday Colony, Sangli.
Sangli.
Maharastra
2. Vakratund Urban Co. Op. Society Ltd., Yera Complex, Opp. Old Octroi Naka, Vishrambag, Sangli.
Sangli.
Maharashtra.
3. Dadaso Pandurang Shinde R/o. Bedag, Mangsuli Road, Near Canal, Bedag Maharashtra.
4. Prakash Tukaram Shinde R/o. Bedag, Mangsuli Road, Near Canal, Bedag.
Maharashtra.
5. Shashikant Baban Mulekar R/o. Trimurti Colony, Near Swami Samarth Mandir, Sangli.
Sangli.
Maharashtra.
6. Ganapati Dnyanu Salunkhe R/o. L.I.C. Office, 'Jeevan Jyoti', Amrai Road, Sangli.
Sangli Maharashtra
7. Hemant B. Patil R/o. A/P Padmale, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli.
Sangli.
Maharashtra.
8. Narendra Manik Bhosale R/o. Jijamata Housing Soc., Varanoli Road, Sangli.
Sangli Maharashtra.
9. Ad. Nijam N. Walvekar R/o. Jamadar Building, Aman Mohalla, 100 Ft. Road, Sangli.
Sangli Maharashtra.
...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Mr.G.G. Vatkar,Advocate, Proxy for P. J. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants Mr.V.M. Kelkar,Advocate, for Mr. D. M. Dhavate, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Mr.S.K. Kelkar, Advocate for respondent No.3-Dadaso Shinde and respondent No.7-Mr.Narendra Bhosale.
ORDER Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18/03/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.13/2008 by District Forum, Sangli.
2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The complainant-respondent No.1 had deposited an amount of `25,000/-
each through Receipt Nos.0017, 0018, 0019 & 0020 with opponent-Vakratund Urban Co-op. Society Ltd. on 06/08/2003. Similarly, org. complainant-respondent No.1 had deposited an amount of `25,000/-
each by Receipt Nos.0021, 0022, 0023 & 0024 on 15/07/2003. Again, org. complainant-respondent No.1 had deposited an amount of `25,000/-
through Receipt No.442. After maturity of the above receipts, opponent/Credit Society failed to pay the amount along with interest and hence, complainant-respondent No.1 had filed consumer complaint praying that aforesaid amount be paid along with interest @ 18% p.a. and the amount vide Receipt No.442 be paid along with interest @ 18% p.a. and `10,000/-
as costs.
3. Opponent Nos.1,4,6,7 & 8 remained absent and hence, District Forum proceeded ex-parte against them.
Opponent Nos.2,3& 9to12 had filed their written version contending that opponent/Credit Society wherein org. complainant-respondent No.1 had deposited their amount has gone in liquidation and hence, complaint cannot be tried against the Credit Society. They further contended that the opponent No.3 included their names as Directors without their permission and opponent No.3 had already taken a responsibility of the payment of the amount. Hence, they prayed that they may please be excluded from the proceedings. Opponent Nos.2,3,& 9to12 had denied their responsibility on the ground that Credit Society wherein the complainant-respondent No.1 had invested the amount is in liquidation.
4. District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by opponents, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of Advocates of both the parties has allowed the complaint and directed the opponents to pay an amount of `25,000/- each vide Receipt Nos.0017, 0018, 0019, 0020 along with interest @ 16% p.a. from 06/08/2003 jointly and severally. Similarly, directed the opponents to pay an amount of `25,000/- each vide Receipt Nos.0021, 0022, 0023 & 0024 with interest @ 16% p.a. from 15/07/2003 jointly and severally and an amount of `2 5,000/- of Receipt No.442 with interest @ 10% p.a. from 01/02/2006 and costs of `1,000/-. District Forum further directed that the order be implemented within period of 30 days. Being aggrieved by this order, org. opponent Nos.2,9,11&12 had filed this appeal.
5. We heard Mr.G.G. Vatkar, Advocate Proxy for Mr.P.J. Patil, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.V.M. Kelkar, Advocate Proxy for Mr.D.M. Dhawate, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.S.K. Kelkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3&7.
6. Admittedly, respondent No.1 had invested the amount of `25,000/- each by eight different deposit receipts and again amount of `25,000/- by receipt No.442. It is on record that org. opponents and present appellants had failed to repay the invested amount along with agreed interest. As the opponents failed to repay the amount invested by respondent No.1, consumer complaint has been filed. It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of complaint, Credit Society wherein the amount is invested by respondent No.1 was under
liquidation. As per provisions of Section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, if Credit Society is under liquidation and aggrieved party wants to proceed against the Credit Society under liquidation, they have to seek permission from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for filing proceeding against the Credit Society which is under liquidation. In the instant case, permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not been obtained by respondent No.1.
Learned District Forum overlooking this important fact has proceeded with the complaint and passed the impugned order. Hence, the order passed against provisions of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act becomes nullity and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
7. No doubt, respondent No.1 has invested her hard-earned money with the Credit Society. However, she is deprived of the money because of mis-management of the Credit Society. Under the circumstances, in the interest of justice, we allow the appeal and set aside the order and remand the case back to the District Forum for decision after giving opportunity to both the parties to plead their case. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 18/03/2010 passed by District Forum, Sangli is quashed and set aside.
2. Consumer complaint is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 30th August 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd