Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Bheta Vividh Vikas Karyakari Seva ... vs Ram(Ramu) Kishan Shinde, on 13 January, 2012

                                 1                  F.A.No.:188/2007




                                Date of filing :13.03.2007
                                Date of order :13.01.2012
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


FIRST APPEAL NO. :188 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 165 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR.


1.   Bheta Vividh Vikas Karyakari
     Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Bheta,
     Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur,
     Through it`s Secretary.

2.   Chairman,
     Bheta Vividh Vikas Karyakari Seva
     Sahakari Society Ltd., Bheta,
     Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.                     ...APPELLANTS
                                              (Org.Opp.No.1 to 3)



VERSUS



1.   Ram(Ramu) Kishan Shinde,
     R/o Bheta, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.

2.   Rameshwar Dhondiba Ambure,
     R/o Bhavsar Galli, Ausa,
     Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.                     ...RESPONDENTS
                                            (No.1-Org.Complainant,
                                             No.2-Org.Opp.No.4)


           CORAM :     Mr.D.N.Admane, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
                       Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.V.P.Golewar for appellant, Adv.Shri.A.K.Jawalkar for respondent No.1, None for respondent No.2.

O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

1. Secretary & Chairman, Bheta Vividh Vikas Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum, Latur in complaint case No.165/05 on 12.02.2007.

2. The facts of the complaint are as under.

Ram Kishan Shinde resident of Bheta, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur is an agriculturist. He had obtained crop loan in the year 1995 of Rs.16,000/- and in the year 1996 loan of Rs.29,000/- for pipeline from appellant society. In respect of repayment of loan, society deducted Rs.75,174/- from the payment of sugarcane received from Manjara Sugar Factory. Thereafter society recovered total amount of Rs.2,67,019.25 ps from the complainant. Even after receipt of huge amount society issued notice of seizer to the complainant and recovered Rs.3,61,785.85 ps. from the complainant. Therefore complainant demanded account statement from the society but it was not supplied. Complainant then approached to Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and demanded account statement from appellant society. Enquiry was conducted by Assistant Registrar on 7.10.2002 and found that society had recovered the excess amount from the complainant. Therefore Registrar directed society to refund excess amount but society did not refund the said amount. It is also alleged by the complainant that after year 1995-96 complainant did not obtain loan from the society. Even then society issued letter of arrears. Therefore complainant again approached to Assistant Registrar, Co.operative Societies, Ausa and prayed for account statement for the year 1996. Many times complainant approached to Assistant Registrar and Registrar directed society to produce the 3 F.A.No.:188/2007 account statement but society did not produce account statement in respect of complainant. Therefore he approached to Forum. Complainant prayed in the complaint that respondent be directed to cancel illegal process fee of Rs.64,000/- and refund back the excess paid amount of Rs.3,66,765/- alongwith 18% interest.

3. Opponent appeared before the Forum and denied the complaint. It is submitted by opponent/present appellant that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as matter relating to member of society and society. It is further submitted by appellant that the complaint gave in writing on 18.8.2002 before Assistant Registrar, Co.operative Societies, Ausa that he had received the account extract from the society and he was in arrears of Rs.47,500/-. It is submitted by appellant that as complainant himself admitted that he received account extract complaint is not maintainable.

4. After hearing both the parties Dist.Forum allowed the complaint and directed appellant to issue account extract since 1995 and Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.3000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost.

5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order Bheta Vividh Vikas Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. came in appeal.

6. Adv.Shri.V.P.Golewar appeared for appellant, Adv.Shri.A.K.Jawalkar appeared for respondent No.1, none appeared for respondent No.2. It is submitted by Adv.Golewar that complainant was borrower member of society there was dispute regarding repayment of loan. The dispute is between member and society. Therefore Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction. It is submitted by Adv.Golewar that complainant with a view to harass the officer of Society filed several complaints before Assistant Registrar,Co.operative 4 F.A.No.:188/2007 Societies, Ausa. It is submitted by Adv.Golwar that complainant himself in writing admitted that he received account extract from the society on the representation made before Assistant Registrar on 18.8.2002. It is further submitted by Adv.Golewar that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to direct the society or bank to issue account extract. In fact prayer made in complaint is about illegal recovery and refund of amount as alleged by complainant. Dist.Forum granted relief which was not prayed by the complainant.

7. Adv.Shri.Jawalkar appeared for respondent No1 submitted that Dist.Forum rightly considered the fact and record while directing to issue account extract. He therefore supported the judgment and order passed by the Forum.

8. We heard both the counsels and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that complainant was borrower member of the society. It is an admitted fact that he filed several complaints with Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ausa with demand of account extract from society. On 18.8.2002 complainant himself made representation to Assistant Registrar. According to which he received account extract of the year 1995. In our view therefore complainant is estopped from calling for account extract of the year 1995. In fact complainant prayed for cancellation of recovery of certain amount and refund of excess amount as alleged by the complainant. Dist.Forum directed appellant society to give account extract of year 1995 which was not prayed by the complainant. In our view Dist.Forum did not consider the facts and record. Dist.Forum committeed error while allowing the complaint. Hence, O R D E R

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The impugned judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. Complaint stands dismissed.

4. No order as to cost.

5. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

6. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

K.B.Gawali,          Mrs.Uma S.Bora              D.N.Admane
 Member                 Member             Presiding Judicial Member


Mane