State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vishwakarma Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd vs Shakuntala Shankar Dahifale on 28 February, 2022
1 A/246&247/2017
Date of filing :18.02.2017
Date of order :28.02.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 246 & 247 OF 2017
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 383 & 382 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD
Vishwakarma Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Aurangabad,
(Liquidation),
Plot No.10, Vyanktesh Housing Society,
Ulkanagari, Aurangabad,
Through its manager,
Sanjay Rambhau Matere,
R/o as above. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. IN APPEAL NO.246/2017
Sow. Shakuntala Shankar Dahiphale,
R/o Plot No.11, Survey No.57/2,
Near Jagtap School, Rajnagar,
Mukundwadi, Aurangabad.
2. IN APPEAL NO.247/2017
Sow.Muktabai Nitin Darade,
R/o Plot No.11, Survey No.57/2,
Near Jagtap School, Rajnagar,
Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.A.Chavan for appellant,
Adv. Pramod Gaikwad & Adv.Daware for respondent.
2 A/246&247/2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 28/02/2022) Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
1. These are two appeals filed by Vishwakarma Bank Limited, Aurangabad against the judgment and order of District Forum, Aurangabad in consumer complaint No.382/2016 and 383/2016 by passing common order.
2. Appellant is opponent in both the complaints and respondent is the complainant in both the complaint. They are referred to as per their status in complaint as opponent and complainant.
3. It is the case of complainant that complainant deposited certain amount with respondent No.1 society. Complainant is in need of money as term deposit matured the complainant demanded amount from opponent bank. However , the opponent bank for one or other reasons avoided paying to the complainant.
4. Due to mis-management and maladministration of the board of directors of respondent No.1 Co-operative bank , Reserve Bank of India put said bank under liquidation and appointed opponent No.2 as Liquidator over the bank. Complainant time and again demanded the maturity amount. However respondent No.2 only disbursed the amount Rs.1 lakh to the complainant and issued the statement of balance amount. Opponent avoided disbursing remaining amount though the complainant time and 3 A/246&247/2017 again requested. Complainant made application to Dist.Deputy Registrar, Co-operative society and sought permission U/s 107 of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act 1960 to sue respondent No.2 before the District Forum. The said authority granted permission under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act 1960 to proceed against opponent No.1 & 2. Thereafter complainant filed consumer complaint before District Forum.
5. Consumer complaint No.382/2016 is filed by Sow.Muktabai Nitin Darade wherein the complainant pleaded that she had deposited Rs.3,31,044/- with the opponent bank. After receipt of Rs.1 lakh from opponent bank the amount of Rs.2,31,044/- is lying with the respondent bank. Complainant pleaded that she needed the money for treatment of her old mother. Her husband has driven her out from his home demanding dowry.
6. It is pleaded by complainant Shakuntala in C.C.No.383/2016 that she has deposited Rs.6,14,483/- with the opponent bank. After receiving Rs.1 lakh from opponent bank the amount of Rs.5,14,483/- is lying with the opponent bank. It is submitted that she is old widow lady and suffering with accident and she is in need of money. There is no one to look after her except her divorce daughter. Her husband has sold her ancestor land and made the deposit of said amount with the hope that complainant may live happily getting interest of this amount.
4 A/246&247/2017
7. Complainant Sow Muktabai Nitin Darade in complaint No.382/2016 has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opponent bank to refund the balance amount of deposit lying with the opponent bank along with interest accrued, compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards physical suppress and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation also sought.
8. Complainant Sow Shakuntala Shankar Dahiphale in complaint No.383/2016 has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opponent bank to refund the balance amount of deposit lying with the opponent bank along with interest accrued, compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards physical suppress and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation also sought.
9. District Forum passed the order on 5.12.2016 which is as follow.
i) Respondent liquidator shall pay the respective amount to the respective complainant as per statement mentioned above along with accrued interest as and when require funds are available and after filing due process of law as applicable to a co-operative bank under liquidation.
ii) Liquidator to forward the copy of latest quarter report of liquidation proceeding to the complainant and a copy thereof in the registry of this Forum within 30 days from this order and shall continue to send the same hereinafter to the complainant till end of liquidation proceedings.
5 A/246&247/2017
iii) Liquidator to forward copy of this judgment to the above mentioned five regulatory offices and submit confirmation having done to the registry of this Forum within 30 days from the date of this order.
10. Being aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.382/2016, 383/2016 dated 5.12.2016 the appellant Vishwakarma Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Liquidation) has filed this appeal through its Manager, Sanjay Rambhau Matere on the ground that complainant is not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(i)(D) of Consumer Protection Act . Complaint is not filed within limitation. Complainant has already received Rs.1 lakh and complaint is not maintainable in view of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Matter was proceeded exparte against the appellant. District Forum allowed the complaint.
11. Adv.S.A.Chavan for appellant/opponent bank filed V.P., however, Adv.Pramod Gaikwad filed V.P. for respondent/complainant.
12. From the submissions of parties, following points arise for our consideration. We have noted them along with findings against it for the reasons to follow.
Points Answers
(i) Whether the complainant established deficiency in service on the part of opponents ? -..In negative.
(ii) Whether there requires interference in 6 A/246&247/2017 the judgement and Order of the Dist.
Forum? ..In negative (iii) What order? - As per final order
13. It is contended by the advocate for appellant that that complaints were proceeded exparte , no opportunity was made available to the opponent bank. Liquidator is appointed on the bank for management. The Deposit and Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation on 5th December 2016 has directed opponent liquidator that Hon'ble Supreme Court in DICGC -Vs- Ragupathi Ragavan ( Civil Appeal No.1035 of 2008 & connected appeals ) has cleared settled question of law on the priority of the claim of DICGC and held that there shall not be any other preferential creditor who would be getting any amount from the Official Liquidator till the amount payable U/s 21 of the DICGC Act 1961 read with Regulation 22 of DICGC General Regulations, 1961 is paid to the Corporation. Further it has been stated in para 30 of the Supreme Court judgment that Hon'ble High Court or any other authority has no bar to direction payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring statutory provision of the Act and regulation made therein. The DICGC has directed to first repay the amount due to DICGC and thereafter consider to pay the depositors/complainants from the available funds.
This judgment was not came before the District Forum. However it requires to be considered in the appeal because Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law on the point payment made by liquidator.
7 A/246&247/2017
14. Adv.Daware on behalf of Adv.Pramod Gaikwad for the complainant submitted that Complainants have deposited certain with the opponent bank as fixed deposit. After maturity complainants have demanded the said amount. But opponent bank paid amount of Rs.1 lakh only and avoided to pay balance amount. Therefore complainants approached the District Forum for the said amount. Dist.Forum issued notice to the opponent bank but they failed to come before the Forum and filed written version. Therefore complaint is proceeded exparte. District Forum after hearing complainant and considering settled legal provisions was rightly passed the judgment. Therefore appeal filed by appellant be dismissed with cost.
15. Perused the documents and written notes of argument filed by both the parties. District Forum has directed opponent liquidator to pay respective amount to the complainants as per statement with accrued interest as and when require funds available after following due process of law. Naturally the order of District Forum is with the liquidator and liquidator is directed by District Forum to act as per law. It cannot be denied that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there shall not be any other preferential creditor who would be getting any amount official liquidator till the amount payable under section 21 of the Act is paid to the Corporation. Therefore there is no obstacle with the liquidator for paying charges of DICGC first before payment to the complainants are made and the opponent is under obligation to proceed for payment to complainants depositor as per 8 A/246&247/2017 law. Therefore there require no interference in the judgment and order of District Forum. Hence we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal Nos. 246/2017 & 247/2017 are hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of this order be kept in Appeal No.247/2017 also.
Sd/- Sd/-
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
MBM