NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3685/2009

SHASKIYA YANTRIKI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT NAGPUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANANDRAO HIRAMAN LANJEWAR - Opp.Party(s)

MR. S.B. SOLAT

03 Nov 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 01 Oct 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3685/2009
(Against the Order dated 13/04/2009 in Appeal No. 302/2009 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. SHASKIYA YANTRIKI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT NAGPURThrough its Secretary Having its office at Link Road. Sadar . Nagpur-1 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. ANANDRAO HIRAMAN LANJEWARR/o. Hudco Colony. LIG -2. Qr. No. 1359/701. Nera Road. Jaripatka Nagpur ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Nov 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Delay of 81 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant deposited Rs.1,09,000/- and Rs.54,600/- with the petitioner on 26.6.2007 and 27.6.2007 respectively.  Maturity dates of the deposits were 25.6.2008 and

26.6.2008.  In spite of expiry of the maturity dates of the deposits, petitioner failed to return the maturity amounts.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed a complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the maturity value of the two deposits along with interest @ 10% p.a., Rs. 5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- as costs.

          Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

            Petitioner had withheld the amounts on the ground that the respondent while as a member of Management Committee, had taken ‘Commission’ from the depositors.  The State Commission has held that the recovery thereunder is a separate than the payment of the maturity value of the term deposits made by the respondent.  We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Whether the allegation regarding taking of ‘Commission’ by the respondent is true or not, shall be confirmed only in enquiry.  If that is found to be correct, only then the recovery can/would be made.  Petitioner cannot withhold the payment of FDR arbitrarily.   There is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.  No costs.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER