Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member These are two appeals bearing Nos.588 & 589/2010 filed by the appellants against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur dated 29/04/2010 in consumer complaint Nos.46/2007 & 47/2007. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, the appeals are clubbed together and common order is passed. The facts leading to these appeals can be summerised as under :- Respondent No.1/org. complainant had filed two separate consumer complaints, namely, consumer complaint No.46/2007 and 47/2007. In both the complaints, respondent/org. complainant has alleged that it has invested amount in appellant No.1/Credit Society on different dates and they have issued deposit receipts Nos.847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 779, 821, 822 & 823. However, after the maturity period, appellant No.1 has not paid the maturity amount. Similarly, respondent No.1/org. complainant had alleged that it has invested amounts on various dates and the appellants have issued him investment receipt Nos.526,826, 827, 828,829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 602, 835, 633, 664, 665, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845 & 846. After the maturity, appellant has not returned the deposit along with interest. Hence, respondent No.1/org. complainant had filed consumer complaint No.46/2007 and 47/2007. Forum below after enquiry into both the complaints, passed an order dated 29/04/2010 directing the appellant Nos.1to12 to return the amount jointly and severally with interest @ 6% p.a. from 25/01/2007 and cost of `2,000/-. It is against this order that these two appeals are filed. Admittedly, appellant is the Co-op. Credit Society and appellant Nos.2to12 are the Directors. Respondent No.1/org. complainant is also a Co-op. Credit Society and respondent No.2/org. O.P.No.13 is the Manager of appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 as well as respondent No.1/org. complainant are governed by the Co-op. Societies Act and the objects of the appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 are one and the same i.e. to accept the investment and to disburse the loan. Respondent No.1 has deposited the amount in the appellant No.1/Credit Society with an intention to earn profit. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 defines the word ‘consumer’. “Consumer” means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Further, the respondent No.1 has not deposited the amount for earning their livelihoods. In the appeal compilation there is an affidavit of Mr.Yuvraj Baburao Warke, who is O.P.No.13 and respondent No.2 in the appeals. In his affidavit, he has admitted that the appellant is registered in the year 1999 and he is working as Manager. He has prepared investment receipts and he has forged the signature of appellant No.2 and he has used the money for himself. Appellants have raised a point that respondent No.1 is not a ‘consumer’ as per definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, Forum below has proceeded to pass the order without giving finding on the point whether respondent No.1 is a consumer. Prima-facie, Forum below has arrived at an erroneous conclusion which cannot be upheld. Under the circumstances, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal Nos.588/2010 & 589/2010 are allowed. The impugned order dated 29/04/2010 is quashed and set aside and in turn, consumer complaint Nos.46 & 47/2007 stand dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
