State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalaram Bhavan vs Kupwad Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. on 9 July, 2012
A/11/988
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/988
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 13/10/2011 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/11/226 of
District Sangli)
1.Jalaram Bhavan Regd. as Public Charitable Trust, through its Secretary Shri. Ashwinkumar Bhagvandas Raje, R/o. 21, Subhashnagar, Miraj, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli.
Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Kupwad Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd.
Kupwad (In Liquidation) Head Office R. P. Patil Chowk, Kupwad.
2. Kupwad Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd.
Branch Subhash Nagar Takali through its LIquidator
3. Shri. Malgonda Anna Patil, Chairman R/o. Gaonbhag, Jain Galli, Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist.
Sangli.
Maharashtra
4. Shri. Mahavir Chavgonda Khot, Vice Chairman R/o. Balajinagar, Kupwad Road, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
5. Shri. Dadaso Shivgonda Patil, Director R/o. Gaonbhag, Lingayat Galli, Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli.
Maharashtra
6. Shri. Balaso Bharmu Karnale, Director R/o. South Ulhasnagar, Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
7. Shri. Shashikant Shankar Gaikwad, Director R/o.
Vidhyanagar Varnali Road, Vishrambag, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli.
Maharashtra
8. Shri. Namdev Baburao Mali, Director R/o. Old Sangli Kupwad Road, Near M.S.E.B., Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli.
Maharashtra
9. Shri. Shrikant Bhagwan Dhotre, Director R/o. Siddharthnagar, Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist.
Sangli Maharashtra
10. Shri. Shafik Abdul Buran, Director R/o. Samatanagar Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
11. Shri. Shivaji Govind Mane, Director R/o. M.I.D.C. Quaraters, Near Bharat Sut girani, Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
12. Shri. Sharad Badendra Patil, Director R/o. Shakha Housing Society, Kupwad Road, Tal. Miraj, Dist.
Sangli.
Maharashtra
13. Shri. Jinpal Balisha Khot, Director R/o. A/p. Kanadwadi, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
14. Shri. Vijay Nivrutti Patil, Director R/o. A/p. Kavalapur, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
15. Shri. Jaypal Dattu Chinchwade, Director R/o. Vivekanand Housing Society, Near Bharag suit girani, Kupwad, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
16. Shri. Channappa Ramchandra Horti, Director R/o. A/p. Umadi, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
17. Shri. Uday Rajaram Kulkarni, Director R/o. Subhashnagar, Malgaon Road, Miraj, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
18. Sou. Mangal Ashok Mohite, Director R/o. Bamnoli, Near Kaman, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli Maharashtra
19. Sou. Surekha Prakash Mirajkar, Director R/o. Mohan Apartment, Gajanan Housing Society, Sangli, Tal. Miraj, Sangli Maharashtra
20. Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarntee Corporation Reserve Bank of India, Bhakhala Office, 2nd floor, Opp. Mumbai Central Station, Mumbai - 400 008.
Maharashtra
21. Reserve Bank of India Urban Bank Division, Mumbai, Divisional Office, Garmater House, Dr. Ani Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018.
Maharashtra
22. Liquidator Mandal Kupwad Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd.
A) Dr. S. N. Jadhav, President, B) A. N. Koli, Member, C) A. B. Shinde, Member ...........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.
None for the Respondents.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard Mr.Satish Patel, Advocate for the appellant on admission.(1)
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.(2)
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.(3)
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.(4)
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.(5)
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