State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Chandrakant Gujaram Choudhary vs The Manager, The Satara Zilla ... on 10 January, 2024
CC/17/1681
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint No.CC/17/1681
Chandrakant Gujaram Choudhary,
Presently residing at:
SS4/133, Next to NKGSB Bank,
Sector 2, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra - 400 705. ....... Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager,
The Satara Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank
Ltd. (DCC),
At Post Charegaon, Taluka Karad,
District Satara - 415 109.
2. The Manager,
Jaywant Bhonsale (Appa) Nagari Sahakari
Patsanstha Karad,
Umbraj Branch, Taluka Karad,
District Satara - 415 109.
3. The General Manager, +
Jaywant Sugars, Dhawarwadi,
Taluka Karad, District Satara - 415 109.
4. The Executive Director,
Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
Yashwant Nagar, Shirwade,
Taluka Karad, District Satara - 415 115.
5. Mr.Mohan Eknath Mane, Chairman,
Charegaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Society,
At Post - Charegaon, Taluka Karad,
District Satara, - 415 109.
1
CC/17/1681
6. The Chairman, Charegaon Rayat Society,
At Post - Charegaon, Taluka Karad,
District Satara - 415109.
7. Mr.Prakash Gujaram Choudhary,
Plot No.406, Shanti Shreyas Co.op. Hsg. Soc.,
Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400 705.
8. Mr.Suresh Gujaram Choudhary,
Flat No.007, Shanti Shreyas Co.p. Hsg. Soc.,
Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, - 400 705.
9. Mr.Rajendra Sadashiv Bhakre, .........Opponent(s)
At Post Charegaon, Taluka Karad,
District Satara - 415 109.
BEFORE:
Justice S.P.Tavade - President
Mukesh V. Sharma - Member
Poonam V. Maharshi - Member
For the Complainant(s) : Complainant in person.
For the Opponent(s) : Advocate Sangram Chavan for opponent nos.5, 6 and 7.
ORDER
(10/01/2024)
Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.P. Tavade - President:
(1) Perused complaint. Heard Complainant in person and Advocate for opponent nos.1, 5 and 6 on the point of admission.
(2) Complainant has narrated several instances of cheating and forgery against the opponent no.1 to 8. It appears from the complaint that the opponent no.1 is Manager of The Satara Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari 2 CC/17/1681 Bank Ltd. (DCC), At Post Charegaon, Taluka Karad, District Satara. Opponent no.2 is The Manager, Jaywant Bhonsale (Appa) Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Karad, Umbraj Branch, Taluka Karad, District Satara. The Opponent no.3 is The General Manager Jaywant Sugars, Dhawarwadi, Taluka Karad, District Satara, is sugar factory/mill to whom farmers supply their sugarcane produce against which they get the payment. The opponent no.4 is the Executive Director, Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Yashwant Nagar, Shirwade, Taluka Karad, District Satara, is another sugar factory/mill to whom farmers supply their sugarcane produce against which they get the payment. The opponent no.5 is Mr.Mohan Eknath Mane, Chairman of Charegaon Vivid Karyakari Seva Society, At Post - Charegaon, Taluka Karad, District Satara, is the farmers credit society. The opponent no.6 is The Chairman, of Charegaon Rayat Society, At Post - Charegaon, Taluka Karad, District Satara. The opponent no.7 is Mr.Prakash Gujaram Choudhary, Plot No.406, Shanti Shreyas Co.p. Hsg. Soc., Sector 17, Vahi, Navi Mumbai, is the real brother of the Complainant and a Director of Co-operative Bank. The opponent no.8 is Mr.Suresh Gujaram Choudhary, Flat No.607, Shanti Shreyas Co.op. Hsg. Soc., Sector 17, Vahi, Navi Mumbai, is another real brother of the Complainant and is working as an office Assistant in Government organisation (but not sure). Opponent no.9 - Mr.Rajendra Sadashiv Bhakre, At Post Charegaon, Taluka Karad, District Satara, Accomplice of Opponent nos.5, 7 and 8.
(3) It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant never took loan from the opponent nos.1, 5 and 6. In the year 2000 the Complainant had deposited amount of Rs.1,24,000/- in Fixed Deposit but the said amount was never refunded to the complainant. It is alleged that an amount of 3 CC/17/1681 Rs.21,662/- was credited in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant but the opponent no.1 transferred the said amount to the opponent no.6 towards payment of loan. It was alleged that the complainant was never member of opponent os.5, 6 and 7. He never took loan from both the Co- operative Societies. The opponent no.1 illegally transferred the amount to opponent no.6. It is alleged that the opponent no.1 has shown outstanding loan amount and certificate u/sec 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act was issued. It is contended that the complainant never took loan from opponent no.2. It is alleged that the opponent no.2 obtained bogus certificates u/sec 101 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, against the Complainant. It is contended that Complainant had sought information of loan from Bank under RTI but it was not provided to him.
(4) It is contended that the Cooperative Society's members (opponent no.5) are not following rules and regulations and they are showing fraudulent transaction with complainant. It is alleged that the opponent nos.7 and 8 had utilised and enjoyed hard earned money of Complainant and then they showed that Complainant had taken farmer's loan. It is contended that the house was also constructed by complainant. He never took loan for construction of house or its repairs. It was contended that the opponent nos.7 and 8 in connivance with the office bearers of the societies (Opponent nos.5 and 6) and opponent no.9 made illegal transactions to defraud the complainant.
(5) It is alleged that the opponent no.1 had transferred the amount from the account of complainant to the account of his brother without his consent. It is also alleged that the opponent no.1 had made false entries in the passbook of the complainant.
4CC/17/1681 (6) It is contended that the opponent nos.7 and 8 are facing several cases. It was contended that the opponent nos.7 and 8 in connivance with opponent nos.1 and 5 had enjoyed wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It is contended that the opponent nos.1 and 2 had carried out unwanted transactions amounting to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence under the Consumer Protection Act. It is opponent nos.2, 3 and 4 who have supported to illegal transfer of money from the account of Complainant to the account of his brothers and towards loan account maintained with opponent nos.5 and 6. It is contended that by harassing complainant on several tactics, intoxicating and including threat opponent nos.5, 7, 8 and 9 made Complainant helpless leaving him no option but to surrender before them. It is also contended that opponent no.5 abused Complainant in crude and filthy language and insulted him. It is also alleged that the opponent no.5 and his accomplices have forcibly took away sugarcane of complainant to the factory and did not credit the amount of sugarcane in his account. It is contended that the complainant had demanded extract of loan account and proposal from opponent nos.1 and 5 but it was not provided.
(7) It is contended that the complainant had issued legal notice to opponents dated 2/11/2017 but it was not replied by the opponents. Hence, the complaint came to be filed.
(8) On perusal of complaint, it appears that the Complainant has come with several instances of cheating and fraud committed with him by the opponents. The first incident is of the year 2000 when Complainant deposited amount of Rs.1,24,000/- in fixed deposit but the said amount is 5 CC/17/1681 not refunded to the complainant. Thus, there are instances of transfer of money from complainant's account maintained with Cooperative Societies, namely opponent nos.5 and 6 in the year 2015. Similarly, there are other allegations of transfer of amount of opponent no.1 in connivance with opponent nos.3 and 4. So, it can be said that there are number of allegations of criminal nature which requires investigation and collection of evidence. The causes of action are of different period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.
(9) The opponent nos.1, 5 and 6 ae relied on the ratio laid down in the case of N.Shivaji Rao V/s. Daman Motors Company Ltd., reported in (1991) 2 CPR 644 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that, the machinery thereunder cannot be effectively utilised for determining complicated questions of fraud and cheating. Similar view is also taken in the case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s Union Bank India reported in (2001) 1 CPC(NC) 136,, wherein it was held that, "the questions raised in a consumer complaint were complicated questions of fact and law and will take elaborate evidence and such complainant cannot be decided by the Consumer Commission".
(10) In the present case also, the complainant has alleged that the opponents have played fraud against him and cheated him. The allegations require detailed evidence and elaborate trial which is not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint in the present commission is not maintainable against the opponents wherein several allegations are made of different instances of different periods. So, this complaint is combination of several causes of 6 CC/17/1681 actions against different persons for different period. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Complaint is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission as not maintainable before the Consumer Commission
(ii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [Mukesh V. Sharma] Member [Poonam V. Maharshi] Member emp 7