State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalaram Bhavan , Regd. As Public ... vs Vasantadada Shetkari Sah Bank Ltd., & ... on 9 July, 2012
A-801-2011
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/801
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 23/08/2011 in Case No. 342/2010 of District Sangli)
1.JALARAM BHAVAN , REGD. AS PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SHRI ASHVINKUMAR BHAVANDAS RAJE, R/O 21 SUBHASH NAGAR, MIRAJ, TAL MIRAJ, SANGLI MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. VASANTADADA SHETKARI SAH BANK LTD., SANGLI SANGLI MIRAJ ROAD THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SANGLI MAHARASHTRA
2. Vasantdada Shetkari Sah. Bank Ltd Branch Laxmi Market, Miraj through it's Liquidator Sangli Maharashtra
3. Shri. Narasgonda Satgonda Patil, Vice Charmain A/p. Nandre, Tal.Miraj Sangli.
Maharashtra
4. Shri. Madan Vishwanathrao Patil, Director "Vijay", Vasant Colony,Near Market Yard, Sangli, Tal. Miraj Sangli.
Maharashtra
5. Shri. Suresh Adgaonda Patil, Director Vasant Market Yard, General Commission Agent, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli.
Maharashtra
6. Shri. Amar Sadashiv Patil, Director "Sadashiv - 4 ", Shaniwar Peth, Madhavnagar, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli.
Maharashtra
7. Shri. Kiran Rajabhau Jagdale, Director 1113, Khanbhag, Jagdale Galli, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli.
Maharashtra
8. Shri. Arvind Shamrao Patil, Director A/p.Padmale, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
9. Shri. Anandrao Maruti Patil, Director A/p.Sangliwadi, Tal.Miraj, Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
10. Shri. Suresh Jingonda Patil, Director A/p.Samdoli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
11. Shri. Shripal Nemgonda Birnale, Director A/p.Mouje Digraj, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
12. Shri. Sarjerao Sakharam Patil, Director A/p.Kavathe Piran, Tal. Miraj Sangli Maharashtra
13. Shri. Niwas Dattajirao Deshmukh, Director A/p.Shirala, Tal. Shirala, Sangli Maharashtra
14. Shri. Dattatraya Shripati Surywanshi, Director A/p.Ankalkhop, Tal. Palus Sangli Maharashtra
15. Sou. Bebitai Maruti Patil Kaman Ves, Mangalwar Peth, Miraj,Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
16. Sou. Vandana Sambhaji Patil A/p.Kavathe Piran, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
17. Shri. Sudhakar Dhondiram Aarate, Director " Vijay ", Vasant Colony, Vasant Market Yard, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
18. Shri. Gajanan Laxmanrao Gavali, Director 112, Gavali Galli, Sangli. Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
19. Shri. Munir Abbas Jambhalikar, Director 404, Khanbhag, Sangli.Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
20. Shri. Bharat Mahadeo Patil, Director A/p. Budhgaon, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
21. Shri. Satish Appaso Birnale, Director Vasant Colony, Vasant Market Yard, Sangli, Tal.
Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
22. Shri. Vijay Virupaksh Gheware, Director 4, North Shivajinagar, Near Dadge Girls Highschool,Sangli.Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
23. Shri. B.R.Tavase, Managing Director "Ramchandra" Bungalow, Sawant Plot, South Shivajinagar Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
24. Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarntee Corporation, Reserve Bank of India, Bhakhala Office, 2nd Floor, Opp. Mumbai Central Station, Mumbai Centre 400 008.
Mumbai Maharashtra
25. Reserve Bank of India, Urban Bank Division, Mumbai, Divisional Office, Garmater House, Dr. Ani Benzet Road, Warali, Mumbai 400 018.
Mumbai Maharashtra
26. Liquidator Mandal, Vasantdada Shetkari Sah.Bank Ltd.,A) V.P. Patil - President, B) B.B. Yadav - Member, C) J.P.Shinde - Member Head Office Sangli Miraj Road Miraj Sangli Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Mr.Satish Patel, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Madhav Tamhankar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5, 7 to 14 and 16 to
22.
Ms.Madhuri Gaware, Advocate, proxy for Mr.S.A. Masal, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 26.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1)Heard. Today Appellant files one service affidavit in respect of unserved Respondents.
There is no statement made in respect of correctness of the address. Therefore, it is not a proper service affidavit and therefore, considering the matter is being prolonged unnecessarily at the stage of admission, we preferred to hear the appeal for admission and the parties present are heard accordingly.(2)
In the instant case, on the sole ground on which the complaint stood dismissed is that the Appellant/Complainant being a public charitable Trust is not a juristic person or legal person within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity) and as such the complaint made could not be entertained and as such, stood dismissed.(3)
Ld.Counsel for the Appellant tried to submit before us that Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as a Trust) is a Hindu Deity and as such it is also registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and therefore, in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Jankijee Deities and Others V/s.State of Bihar and Others, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2131, Public Trust is a person within the meaning of the Act. The facts of this case are little different.
We are afraid, in view of the decision in the matter of Pratibha Paratisthan & Ors. V/s.Allahabad Bank and Ors., reported in SC & NATIONAL COMMISSION CONSUMER LAW CASES (2005-2008) 328, the Honble National Commission considered these aspects in the light of the Provisions of the Act and held that Public Trust is not the legal person within the meaning of the Act.(4)
As far as status of Appellant/Complainant as a person within the meaning of the Act is concerned, is to be considered in the light of the Provisions made under the Act and which are explained by the Honble National Commission in the matter of Pratibha Prathisthan, supra.
The Forum, thus, rightly held that the Appellant/Complainant is not a legal person within the meaning of the Act and as such, the consumer dispute cannot be entertained.(5)
There is one more hurdle to continue with the complaint vis--vis the appeal. In the background of present scenario, statutory Bar to entertain legal proceedings under Section 107 of Maharashtra Societies Act is attracted since on the Opponent Bank against whom deficiency in service is alleged for not refunding the deposits of the Trust, is under liquidation and a Liquidator is appointed but no permission of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to continue with the legal proceeding before the Consumer Fora is obtained from the authority. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld.Counsel appearing for the Appellant that they did apply (for such permission) but no reply was received. Said statement though not supported by any documentary evidence, the fact remains that no such permission was obtained. Before parting with the order, we may observe that though the Appellant could not continue with the remedy before the Consumer Fora, it may avail any other legal remedy as may be available to it.(6)
For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to admit the appeal. we hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
(ii) In the given circumstances no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 9th July, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep