PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 439 of 2009 – Andhra Bank & Ors. Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam by which, appeal was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No.1 Society registered under the Societies Registration Act had several S.B. Accounts and one of them is S.B.A/c No.909 in the branch of opposite party no.1/Petitioner No.1 since several years. The said account was operable by the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Society together. The cheques signed both by the Secretary and the Treasurer alone were being accepted for drawing of amounts from the accounts of the complainant Society. While so when two of the office bearers of the Society by names T.Rama Moorthy/OP No. 4/Respondent No. 4, the then Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurer and Ch.Thyagaraja Sarma the then Vice President of the complainant started creating trouble. As per the demand of the members of the Executive Committee of the Society, the Secretary of the Society held Executive Committee Meetings on 19.2.2006 and passed resolution to strip off the powers of Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurership and Vice Presidentship by electing Dr.Venugopal as the new Treasurer. The said resolution was duly intimated to opposite party no.1 by its letter dated 22.02.2006 enclosing a notarized Xerox copy of the resolution of the Executive Body of the Society and requested to recognize the newly elected treasurer and his signatures in the place of the removed treasurer. The first opposite party accepted the change of Treasurership of the complainant Society and honoured cheque bearing NO.012843 dated 4.3.2006 for Rs.30,000/- but dishonoured the cheque bearing No.012844 issued in favour of T.Govinda Krishnaiah Setty for sum of Rs.16,045/- towards printing expenses on the ground that the accounts of the Society has been freezed. The complainant society addressed letter dated 19.5.2006 to the first opposite party marking copies to opposite parties no.2 and 3/Petitioner No. 2 & 3 questioning the unilateral freezing of accounts and the dishonour of the cheque and also requested them to immediately withdraw the freezing of the Satram accounts. Opposite party no.1 gave reply dated 5.6.2006 justifying his action of freezing S.B.A/c of the complainant in conformity with the constitution of byelaws of the complainant Satram. The enquiries made by the complainant Society revealed that with the collusion of the erstwhile office bearers of the complainant Society the opposite party no.1 honoured the following cheques issued by the erstwhile office bearers of the complainant Society. Cheque No. Date Amount Name 0607926 20.05.2006 90,000/- K.Padmavathi 0607927 22.05.2006 2,00,000/- K.Padmavathi 0607928 22.05.2006 1,20,000/- T.Rama Linga Sastry 0607929 22.05.2006 80,000/- Subrahmanya Kumar
The complainant submits that opp.party no.1 ignored the cheque book already issued in favour of the complainant Society and has even favoured them by issuing a fresh cheque book to them. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. 3. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that since the account holder is the Society the first opposite party relied on the resolution and honoured the cheque issued by Dr.Venugopal and MDY Ram Murthy. Thereafter there was objection by T.Ram Murthy stating that action of M.D.Y.Rama Murthy and other in removing T.Ram Murthy is illegal. The first opposite party after examining the contention of T.Ram Murthy decided to freeze the account. But subsequently another resolution was received about the election of T.Ram Murthy as General Secretary and O.A.Mallik as Treasurer. Copy of proceedings of the Incharge president and resolution of the governing body of complainant Society were received by the opposite party no.1 wherein it was stated that the Board meeting of the complainant Society was convened on 4.5.2006 and it elected Sri T.Ram Murthy as General Secretary and Sri O.A.Mallik as Treasurer. They also sent their specimen signatures for operating accounts. They also enclosed copy of FIR filed against M.D.Y.Ram Murthy, G.Rama Rao, K.Radha Krishna Murthy for the offences under Sec.403, 406, 408 and 420. Sri M.D.Y.Ram Murthy filed O.O.P.No.18 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool against T.Ram Murthy, Thaygaraja Sarma and K.V.Prasad seeking declaration that the petitioner should continue as secretary of complainant society and to declare the claim of the respondents therein and 39 Committee members as illegal. The dispute is not a Consumer Dispute and it is to be settled either before arbitrator or before the District Judge as per Sec.23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act. M.D.Y.Ram Murthy instead of getting necessary orders with regard to operation of accounts by filing application in O.O.P.no.58 of 2005 has initiated parallel litigation. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 & 3 adopted written statement filed by OP No. 1. OP No. 4 resisted complaint, but denied status of the complainant as Secretary of complainant Society and thereby his authority to file the case. As per Rule 14 of the Bye-laws of the Society, the President alone is competent for suing and being sued for the said Society. Sri M.D.Y.Ram Murthy has been removed from the post of Secretary as per the constitution and opposite party no.4 was elected as the Secretary of the complainant Society and a copy of resolution of the Governing Body was sent to opposite party no.1 informing the change in the Executive Committee. The tenure of Sri M.D.Y. Ram Murthy as Secretary of the complainant Society expired by February, 2004 itself and a General Body meeting was convened to be held on 23.1.2005 at Srisailam for election of the new body but he managed to postpone the elections. Thereafter he filed a petition in O.P.No.18 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act-2001 to declare that he shall continue as Secretary of the said Society and the said petition is still pending before the said Court. Since the matter is already seized by the Civil Court, this complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 4,90,000/- with 12% p.a. interest to complainant and OPs were directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 4. Respondent No. 2 died during pendency of proceedings. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has not considered question of maintainability of complaint and has also not considered impact of judgement of Principal District Judge and committed error in dismissing appeal on flimsy grounds; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has not considered the aspect of maintainability of complaint before Consumer Fora in the light of Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act which provides that dispute arising among Committee or Members of the Society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the Society, a Member of the Society may proceed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act or may file application in the District Court. In II (2016) CPJ 42 (NC) – Hanuman Sahakari Pani Pruvatha Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. I observed that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint pertaining to dispute between Members of the Society. Learned State Commission has also not considered impact of judgment dated 30.6.2008 passed by Principal District Judge, Kurnool in Original Petition No. 18 of 2005 – M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy Vs. Maganti Subramanyam & Ors. in which in Point No. 3 it was observed that Petitioner is not entitled for declaration to continue as Secretary of Akhila Bharatiya Brahmana Karivena Nityannadana Satram, Srisailam. Learned State Commission has also not considered the aspect whether complaint filed by complainant was maintainable in the light of aforesaid judgment as it was passed before order passed by District forum. 8. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal only on the basis that Exb. B-6 was not mentioned in the counter or in the affidavit of OP and it was undated whereas Exb. B-6 contains date of receipt by OP. 9. As Learned State Commission has not considered important aspects and documents, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to learned State Commission to decide appeal afresh in the light of aforesaid observations. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 6.6.2011 passed by learned State commission in Appeal No. 439 of 2009 – Andhra Bank & Ors. Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal afresh in the light of aforesaid observations after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 11. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 28.4.2017. | 
