For the 3rd Party Intervener: Sri Bibhudutta Samantaray,Advocate, Berhampur
DATE OF FILING: 07. 09.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.04.2017
O R D E R
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) alleging deficiency in banking service and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The brief facts of the case of complainant as stated in the complaint are that he is the Secretary of Banadevi Seva Sadan, a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, bearing registration No.13487/331. The said society deals with the management of Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, Banadevi Temple and Banadevi Balashram respectively. The account of different banks of the society operated through its elected body of management which was elected vide Resolution No.242 dated 19.06.206 where the present complainant was elected as Secretary of the Society by the General Body as per the Bye-law of the society. The elected body of management of the society communicated the decision to the O.P. banks vide its letter No.244 dated 12.07. 2016 and before that the complainant along with Sri Prabin Kumar Dash, President had also filed KYC Form before the O.Ps for their record and as claimed the same was recorded by the respective O.P. Banks. The complainant further stated that on 25.07.2016, he sent a letter to O.P. No.1 by enclosing three Cheques bearing No.3786595, 378396 and 378397 respectively for an amount of Rs.3,16,788/- towards EPF contributions of the employees of Banadevi I.T.I., Kabisurya Nagar, Ganjam for the month of April, May and June, 2016 for onward transmission to the office of EPF authorities, Berhampur, Ganjam. However, instead of doing so, the O.P. No.1 returned the aforesaid three cheques without showing any reason thereof. He also submitted that the deposit of E.P.F. is a statutory obligation under the provisions of E.P.F. & M.T. Act, 1952 and the employer is liable to face damage under Section 14(B) of the said Act. Similarly, the complainant on 25.07.2016 again submitted another cheque for Rs.50,262/- relating to food materials of orphan children sent by child welfare department to the Banadevi Balashram and the same was also returned by O.P.No.1. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the salary of the employees of Banadevi Industrial Training Centre is linked to the bank account with O.P.No.2 and due to non-transaction of the said account the employees of the institute are facing a lot of difficulties. The complainant has also alleged that due to deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.1&2, the complainant suffers from harassment causing mental agony and therefore he has filed this consumer complaint with a prayer to direct the O.P. Banks to allow operation of accounts and to make payment of damages by O.P.No.1 in the event of levy of EPF authorities under Section 14(B) of the E.P.F. & M.T. Act, 1952. The complainant has also filed an interim application along with the original complaint under Section 13 3(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with same relief and directions as prayed for in the original complain petition. That apart, the complainant has also prayed for an exemplary compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to be paid by the O.P. No. 1 &2 and to pass such any other orders as deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued against all O.Ps and after receipt of notices from this Forum the O.Ps appeared through their learned counsels and filed their written versions respectively. The O.P.No.1 appeared on 18.10.2016 through his learned counsel Sri E.Ananta Sayanam, Advocate, Aska and filed his written version. In the written version it is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are all not true and the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations which are not specifically admitted herein. He contended that the complainant is the Secretary of Banadevi Seva Sadan is not correct. It is a fact that there is a society under the name and style of Banadevei Seva Sadan which is registered under the Societies registration Act, 1860 bearing No.13487/331 but O.P.No.1 has no knowledge and information about what are the institutions run by the said society. It is also contended that the complainant Sri Tripati Mishra is not the Secretary of the said society at the relevant time of filing of this case nor is the Secretary at the time the alleged cause of action arose to file this case and Sri Tripati Mishra has not locus-standi to file this complaint. It is also stated that this O.P. has no knowledge about other bank accounts except an account with this O.P. It is further submitted that Banadevi Seva Sadan having its bank account with O.P.No.1 being operated by the President Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and its Secretary Sri Rudra Prasana Panda smoothly without objection of anybody. The bank also allowed both to operate the bank account of the society and as the matter stood thus two rival groups of the society was formed. The President Prabin Kumar Dash and styling Sri Tripati Mishra as Secretary claimed to operate the bank account of the society and on the same way another group headed by Sri Rudra Prasana Panda styling Sri Bibekananda Sahu as President and Sri Rudra Prasana Panda as Secretary of the society claimed to operate the bank account. Hence, there are two managing committees of the society. On 20.6.2016, this O.P. received two letters, one letter from Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and Sri Tripati Mishra styling themselves as President and Secretary and the other letter from Sri Rudra Prasana Panda and Vice-President and members of the said society. As the two rival groups wanted to operate the account of the society, the O.P.No.1 asked them to establish the right to operate the bank account before the competent court to operate the bank account standing with O.P.No.1. It is further submitted that both the Secretary Sri Rudra Prasana Panda and Sri Tripati Mishra referred the matter to the District Collector, Ganjam and the Collector, Ganjam after hearing both parties passed an order on 17.09.2016 for operation of bank account and smooth functioning of the society by constituting a committee comprising of Tahasildar, Kabisurya Nagar as President, BDO, Kabisurya Nagar as Secretary and Medical Officer, Kabisurya Nagar, BEO, Kabisurya Naga and CDPO, Kabisurya Nagar as Members with a direction to continue the same arrangement till the dispute between two groups is finalized by Civil Court. He also informed that Sri Rudra Prasan Panda claiming as Secretary of the society has filed a civil suit bearing No.C.S.141/2016 before Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Kodala, Ganjam, against other group members headed by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and Sri Tripati Mishra. Sri Tripati Mishra has also filed a writ petition bearing No.17237/2016 before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack as Secretary of the society challenging the activities of other group and the said writ is subjudice before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. Under the above fact and circumstances and rival claims of the two groups, the O.P.No.1 has no other options except to deny Sri Tripati Mishra to operate the bank account. Besides, the O.P.No.1 has also contended that the allegation of petitioner that he has filed the KYC form and admitted by O.P. No.1 is not correct and the complaint is not maintainable since the bank account holder is not made a party to the present dispute. The bank account for which the dispute is filed is not standing in the name of Sri Tripati Mishra so there is no deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.1 in not allowing the operation of bank account through cheque No.3786595, 378396 and 378397 of the society since the status of the alleged President and Secretary was standing with clouds. There is no cause of action for Sri Tripati Mishra to file the dispute against O.P.No.1 hence the Hon’ble District Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
The O.P.No.2 also appeared in this Forum on 18.10.2016 through learned counsel Sri Bhagaban Mohapatra & Associates, Advocates, but did not prefer to file his written version of the case and was also remained absent on calls and from the date of his appearance till on the date of final hearing and disposal of the consumer dispute.
The O.P.No.3 appeared through learned counsel Sri B.K. Mohanty, Advocate, Berhampur and filed his version of the case. The O.P.No.3 in his written version stated that the averments made in the complaint are not true and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is admitted that the society Banadevi Seva Sadan deals with the functions of Industrial Training Centre, Banadevi Temple and Banadevi Balashram respectively. The O.P. No.3 also admitted that the said society is having a bank account bearing No.260901000007777 and Banadevi Industrial Training Centre is having a savings bank account bearing No.2609010000004444 with it. According to the Memorandum and Byelaws of the society, the above accounts are being operated jointly by the President and Secretary. It is also submitted that as per resolution dated 15.12.2015, the aforesaid accounts were operated by Sri Prabin Kumar Das and Sri Rudra Prasana Panda as President and Secretary of the society respectively. However, due to difference of opinion of members of the general body and governing body of the society, conflicting and contradictory resolutions and applications were submitted before O.P.No.3 bank claiming operations of the society. One Sri Rudra Prasana Panda claiming to be the Secretary of the society has provided a list of office bearers as per the resolution dated 22.06.2016 addressed to the Collector, Ganjam, Chatrapur with copy to I.I.C., Kabisurya Nagar Police Station to enquire into the affairs of the society. Moreover, the above dispute have resulted in filing WP( C) No.17237 of 2016 and Misc. Case No.16780 of 2016 by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash in the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 24.10.2016 with the direction “In the interim, status quo in respect of management of three institutions namely, Banadevi Temple, Banadevi Balashram and Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, Kabisurya Nagar in the district of Ganjam as is stands today shall be maintained till the next date of listing”. Similarly, one Rudra Prasana Panda claimed himself as the Secretary of the society has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.141/2016 and IA No.16/2016 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, and the same is subjudice. Due to the above disputes among the members of the society and litigation pending before different courts, the Collector, Ganjam has also constituted a temporary committee to operate the bank accounts and manage the institutes smoothly till finalization of the dispute in the Civil Court. In view of above facts and circumstances, this O.P.No.3 has stopped operation of the account as per the prudent banking practice to protect the interest of the society and willing to allow operation of accounts after finalization of litigations pending before different courts. The decision not to allow operation of the account has been taken by the O.P.No.3 for the betterment and protection of the larger interest of the society with information to the rival claimants. It is further contended by O.P.No.3 that this complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of parties and the complaint is not filed properly by the competent person of the society. Due to filing of an FIR with police criminal and dimension to the case the complaint also not maintainable and it is contended that since there is no specific allegations made against this O.P., there is no deficiency in service on part of this O.P. This case also involves complex question of facts, evidence and law and in the same subject matter of the disputes pending before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack as well as in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, Ganjam. This Forum has no jurisdiction to admit and adjudicate the dispute and the same can only be adjudicated in Civil and Criminal Courts after completion of police investigation. In view of above peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, this case does not come within the scope and ambit of the Consumer Forum, therefore, Hon’ble Forum may graciously be pleased to dismiss the case with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
The O.P.No.4 put his appearance on 18.10.2016 through learned counsel Sri Chandrasekhar Patra, Advocate, Berhampur, and filed his written version on 19.04.2017. It is contended that two sets of management of the society claimed to operate the account. One set is headed by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and the other by Sri Bibekananda Sahu, who are claimed to be the President of separate governing bodies of the society. So, in view of claims made by two sets of managing committee, it is not possible to allow for transaction for the interest of the institutions and there is also claim of misappropriation of funds of the institutions. It is also averred that the complaint reveals allegations against O.P.No.1&2 for deficiency in services. The complaint does not disclose a single allegation of deficiency in service against the O.P.No.4 so there is no need to array this O.P. in this complaint. The claim is bad for mis-joinder of O.P.No.4 as a party to this dispute and may be dismissed against this O.P.No.4. It is further submitted by the O.P.No.4 that the complainant has approached Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide in W.P. (C ) No.17237 of 2016 adding the respondents as parties to the case. In the said case the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, has passed an order on 24.10.2016 directing “In the interim, status quo in respect of management of three institutions namely Banadevi Temple, Banadevi Balashram and Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, Kabisurya Nagar in the district of Ganjam as it stands today shall be maintained till the next date of listing”. Hence, it is prayed by O.P.No.4 that the Hon’ble District Forum be pleased to dismiss the case against O.P.No.4 in the interest of justice.
The O.P.No.5 &6 were also duly served notices but they did not prefer to put their appearance and not filed their written version with in the statutory period as a result, O.P.No.5 & 6 both were declared set ex-pate on 14.3.2017 and the case was also proceeded ex-parte against both of them.
The learned counsel for the complainant has also filed his arguments of the case before this Forum on 14.03.2017 against the contentions raised through the written versions of the O.P. No.1&2. The learned counsels for O.Ps have also orally submitted that their versions should be taken as written arguments of the case. In fact, this case was previously posted on 20.03.2017 for hearing on third party intervener as well as for the disposal of interim application of the complainant filed under Section 13 (3B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, due to difference of opinions between the Hon’ble President and learned Member (W) of this Forum, the case was deferred to 24.04.2017 for hearing afresh before the bench comprising senior member of the Forum on the aforesaid two issues along with for final disposal of the dispute on merits in view of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, vide W.P. (C) No.172 of 2017 order dated 22.02.2017 for quick disposal of the case.
4. On the date of final hearing of the consumer dispute on 24.04.2017, the learned counsels for the complainant as well as for O.P.No.1, 3&4 are present. The learned counsel for the third party intervener is also present today. We have heard the counsels for respective parties and have also gone through the materials on the case record like complain petition, written versions, counter arguments made by complainant, resolutions and bye-laws of the society and the oral submissions made by the parties before this Forum respectively.
During the course of hearing the consumer dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner is the secretary of a registered society i.e. Banadevei Seva Sadan(for short the society) and the said society has been managing three institutions Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, Banadevi Temple and Banadevi Balashram respectively. The society elected the body of management committee vide resolution No.242 dated 19.06.2016 where the present complainant elected as secretary by the general body as per the bye-laws of the society. The matter was also communicated to the O.Ps in letter No.244 dated 12.07.2016. It is also contended that the present complainant along with Sri Prabin Kumar Das had also filed the KYC form before the O.Ps for their record and the same was recorded by the respective banks. Accordingly, the complainant in its letter dated 25.07.2016 to the O.P.No1 enclosed three cheques bearing No.3786595,378396 and 378397 dated 25.07.2017 for Rs.3,16,788/- towards EPF contribution of the employees of Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, Kabisurya Nagar for the month of April, May and June, 2016 for onward transmission to the EPF authorities, Berhampur. Similarly, the complainant had also submitted another cheque on 25.07.2016 for Rs.50,262/- towards food materials of orphan children of Banadevi Balashram but the O.P.No.1 did not honour but returned the same. Hence the learned counsel for the counsel prayed before this Forum through an interim application filed under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and sought directions against O.P.No.1&2 to allow him to operate the bank account with O.P.No.1&2. The learned counsel for the complainant also argued that the salary of the employees of the Banadevi Industrial Training Centre is linked to the bank account with O.P.No.2 but due to non-transaction of same the complainant along with employees of the said institution are facing a lot of harassment. Due to deficiency in services on part of O.Ps No.1&2, the complainant suffered a lot and for that the complainant has filed this complaint for relief as prayed in his complain petition.
On the contrary, the O.P.No.1 in his oral submissions contended that the complainant Sri Tripati Mishra is not the Secretary of the said society at the relevant time of filing of this case nor is the Secretary at the time the alleged cause of action arose to file this case and Sri Tripati Mishra has no locus-standi to file this complaint. It is also contended that due to two rival management committees of the society headed by two different persons as President and Secretary, the O.P. bank did not allow to operate the account. Besides, the O.P.No.1 also submitted that in this case the District Collector, Ganjam has also constituted a committee for smooth running of three institutions. He further contended that Sri Rudra Prasan Panda claiming as Secretary of the society has filed a civil suit bearing No. C.S. 141/2016 before Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, Ganjam, against other group members headed by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and Sri Tripati Mishra. Sri Rudra Prasana Panda has also filed a writ petition bearing No.17237/2016 before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack as Secretary of the society challenging the activities of other group members and the said writ is subjudice before Hon’ble High Court. Under the above fact and circumstances and rival claims of the two parties, O.P. No. 1 has no other option except to deny Sri Tripati Mishra to operate the bank account. The bank account for which the dispute is filed is also not standing in the name of Sri Tripati Mishra so there is no deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.1 in not allowing the operation of bank account through cheque No.3786595, 378396 and 378397 of the society since the status of the alleged President and Secretary was standing with clouds. There is no cause of action for Sri Tripati Mishra to file the dispute against O.P.No.1 hence the Hon’ble District Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
Similarly, the O.P.No.3 in his oral submissions admitted that the said society is having a bank account bearing No.260901000007777 and Banadevi Industrial Training Centre is having a savings bank account bearing No.2609010000004444 with it. According to the Memorandum and Byelaws of the society, the above accounts are being operated jointly by the President and Secretary. It is also submitted that as per resolution dated 15.12.2015, the aforesaid accounts were operated by Sri Prabin Kumar Das and Sri Rudra Prasana Panda as President and Secretary of the society respectively. However, due to difference of opinion of members of the general body and governing body of the society, conflicting and contradictory resolutions and applications were submitted before O.P.No.3 bank claiming operations of the society. Moreover, the above dispute have resulted in filing WP( C) No.17237 of 2016 and Misc. Case No.16780 of 2016 by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash in the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 24.10.2016. Likewise, one Rudra Prasana Panda claimed himself as the Secretary of the society has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.141/2016 and IA No.16/2016 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, and the same is subjudice. Due to the above disputes among the members of the society and litigation pending before different courts, the District Collector, Ganjam has also constituted a temporary committee to operate the bank accounts and manage the institutes smoothly till finalization of the dispute in the Civil Court. In view of above facts and circumstances, this O.P.No.3 has stopped operation of the account as per the prudent banking practice to protect the interest of the society and willing to allow operation of accounts after finalization of litigations pending before different courts. The decision not to allow operation of the account has been taken by the O.P.No.3 for the betterment and protection of the larger interest of the society with information to the rival claimants. It is further contended that since there is no specific allegations made against this O.P., there is no deficiency in service on part of this O.P. This case also involves complex question of facts, evidence and law and in the same subject matter of the disputes pending before Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack as well as in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, Ganjam. This Forum has no jurisdiction to admit and adjudicate the dispute and the same can only be adjudicated in Civil and Criminal Courts after completion of police investigation. In view of above peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, this case does not come within the scope and ambit of the Consumer Forum, therefore, Hon’ble Forum may graciously be pleased to dismiss the case with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
Likewise, the O.P.No.4, in his oral submissions contended that two sets of management of the society claimed to operate the accounts; one set is headed by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and the other by Sri Bibekananda Sahu as President of separate governing bodies of the society. So, in view of claims made by two sets of managing committees, it is not possible to allow for transaction of bank accounts for the interest of the institutions as there is apprehension of misappropriation of funds of the institutions. It is also contended that the complaint reveals allegations against O.P.No.1&2 for deficiency in services but it does not disclose a single allegation against the O.P.No.4 so there is no need to array this O.P. in this case. The claim is bad for mis-joinder of O.P.No.4 as a party to this dispute. It is further submitted by the O.P.No.4 that the complainant has approached Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P. (C ) No.17237 of 2016 which is pending for adjudication by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, hence this case is not maintainable in this Forum and the case may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Besides the above, on behalf of the third party intervener Sri Rudra Prasana Panda, the learned counsel Sri Bibhudutta Samantaray, Advocate, Berhampur, also appeared in this Forum on 18.10.201. He drew our attention towards the representation made by one Sri Rudra Prasana Panda on 19.09.2016 and prayed before this Forum to add him as a necessary party to this dispute since he too claimed to be the Secretary of the said Society and all the bank accounts are standing in his name. Since, in this case the decision to allow or to reject the third party intervener was also pending in this Forum and waiting for disposal, the same is also posted today for disposal on merits. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the third party intervener is also present and submitted before this Forum with prayer to allow him to put forth his side in this case.
5. We have carefully heard the learned counsels for respective parties and perused the pleadings of parties to this dispute respectively. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made orally before the Forum by respective parties, gone through the case record and verified the vital documents placed on it.
On perusal of the case record, it reveals that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint on 07.09.2016 along with an interim application under Section 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in services on part of the O.Ps for not allowing the present complainant to operate the bank account with O.P.No.1&2 and to direct the O.Ps through an interim order to allow the complainant to operate the bank accounts of the society i.e. Banadevi Seva Sadan, Kabisurya Nagar, Ganjam on limited grounds like deposit of EPF dues, payment of salary of employees, disbursement of cost of food materials of orphan children of the Balashram of the society and the day to day management of Banadevi Temple. In the complaint the complainant has mentioned in his complain petition at para -7 that he had submitted three cheques bearing No.3786595, 378396 and 378397 on 25.07.2016 to the O.P.No.1 for the aforesaid purpose but in fact letter dated 27.07.2016 placed as Annexure -3 disclosed that the cheques bearing No.378595, 378596 and 378597 respectively were submitted through the said letter. It is also found from case record that one Sri Rudra Prasana Panda has filed a representation before this Forum on 19.09.2016 claiming to be the Secretary of the said society and requested the Forum to allow him as third party intervener in this case. The record also discloses that the learned counsel for the complainant has filed an advance petition on 21.11.2016 to direct the O.P. No.1&2 to allow the complainant for operation of the bank accounts. Similarly, the complainant once again on 08.02.2017 & on 20.03.17 respectively also filed a petition to direct the O.P. No.1&2 to allow him operation of bank accounts. From the case record it is also evident that the District Collector, Ganjam has passed an order on dated 17.09.2016 for operation of bank accounts and smooth functioning of the society by constituting a committee comprising of Tahasildar, Kabisurya Nagar as President, BDO, Kabisurya Nagar as Secretary and Medical Officer, Kabisurya Nagar, BEO, Kabisurya Nagar and CDPO, Kabisurya Nagar as Members with a direction to continue the same arrangement till the dispute between two groups is finalized by Civil Court. From the case record it is also revealed that a civil suit filed by Sri Rudra Prasana Panda bearing No.C.S.141/2016 is pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, Ganjam, against the rival group members headed by Sri Prabin Kumar Dash and Sri Tripati Mishra. It is also seen from the case record that the learned counsel for the complainant has filed copy of an order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, which was passed on 24.10.2016 to stay the orders of the District Collector, Ganjam, dated 17.09.2016 vide W.P. (C ) No.17237 of 2016 and Misc. Case No.17680 of 2016 where it was directed “In the interim, status quo in respect of management of three institutions namely, Banadevi Temple, Banadevi Balashram and Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, Kabisurya Nagar in the district of Ganjam as is stands today shall be maintained till the next date of listing”. The complainant has also filed another writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, against the inaction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam where it was prayed before the Hon’ble High Court to direct the District Forum, Ganjam to dispose of the interim application arising out of this consumer complaint within period of four weeks from the date of order by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties in accordance with law and the result thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner as per law. The said orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide W.P. No. (C ) No. 1702 of 2017 dated 22.02.2017 was officially communicated to this Forum on 06.04.2017 by the Superintendent of High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vide his letter No.7722/W.P.(C )/ No.1702/2107 dated16.3.2017.
Under the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, the points to be adjudicated by the Forum:
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to allow a third party intervener in this consumer case as a necessary party to this dispute?
- Whether this Forum can pass an interim order in favour of the complainant under Section 13(3B) of C.P. Act, 1986 to operate the bank accounts of the society in view of the complex factual dispute in the management committee of the society?
- And, whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate this consumer dispute on merits in view of complex questions of facts and dispute between two rival management committees and when the matter is subjudice before a Civil Court or in High Court of Orissa, Cuttack for settlement of said dispute on same cause of action?
6. With regard to first question, we would like to say that in consumer justice, there is no express provision for third party intervener in a particular consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Where the Act does permit to allow a third party intervener to be added in a consumer dispute, this Forum can’t allow the present third party intervener in this case. We are, therefore, unable to accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the third party intervener; the Forum, therefore, declined to accept the representation made by the third party intervener in this case.
To address the second issue as made above, we would like to state that in this case the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vide W.P. (C ) 1702 of 2017 on dated 22.02.2017 has directed to this Forum to dispose of the interim application of the complainant filed under Section 13(3B) of C.P. Act, 1986 within four weeks by affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to both parties. Accordingly, during the course of hearing of this consumer dispute, we have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties at length and have also gone through the documents and on verification of the materials and pleadings of parties we found that this is a case of dispute between two groups of management committees of the aforesaid society. It is also contended by the O.P.No.1 that the bank account is not standing in the name of this present complainant so there was no other options except to deny the complainant. So, in this case complex question of facts are involved and where complex question of fact is involved this Forum can’t decide the same dispute in this summary procedure. We are, therefore, unable to pass any interim order in this case in view of involvement of complex question of facts and dispute in the management committee of the society. It is also a fact on record as discussed above that due to the dispute in management of said society, a civil suit is pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kodala, Ganjam, and simultaneously a case is also pending before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack with regard to management of the society arising out of the orders of District Collector, Ganjam, dated 19.09.2016 as discussed above. Hence, it is amply clear that this Forum can’t pass an interim order in favour of the complainant to operate the accounts with O.P. banks in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case since it will be prejudice and contrary to the interests of both the rival groups.
With regard to third issue as stated above, we would like to say that in the original complaint, the complainant has prayed for the same relief as prayed in his interim application filed by him along with original complaint. The prayer of complainant is limited and confined to operation of bank accounts of the society with O.P.No.1 &2 for depositing the EPF dues and payment of salary of employees of the Banadevi Industrial Training Centre, management of the Banadevi Temple and for management of Banadevi Balashram. In this case, the complainant has prayed before this Forum to direct the O.P. No.1&2 to allow the complainant to operate the bank accounts of the society for the aforesaid purpose. It is also a fact on record that the District Collector, Ganjam has also passed an order on 17.09.2016 for constitution of a new management committee as discussed above on the allegation petition of Sri Rudra Prasana Panda & Sri Tripati Mishra and others for the day to day management of the Banadevei Seva Sadan, Kabisurya Nagar, Ganjam and the present complainant has also preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack as discussed above and which is subjudice. In this connection, we would like to say that in view of the dispute in the management committee between two rival groups claimed to the President and Secretary of the Society respectively, this Forum can’t adjudicate this dispute on merits since in this case a lot of complex questions of facts are involved and for that Civil Court is competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. In this dispute, as per the argument of learned counsels for the O.Ps and materials available on the case record, this matter is subjudice before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kodala, Ganjam and simultaneously another case is also pending before Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack for adjudication and orders as discussed above. Hence, at this moment if we pass any orders on the merits of this case it will be prejudice to the interest of other rival groups of management committee. In this connection, we would like state that the nature of the proceedings before the Forum is essentially in summary nature. But, in this case the factual position is required to be established by documents and examination and cross examination of parties to the dispute. Moreover, complex factual position requires matter to be examined by appropriate Court of law and not by this District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstance of the case, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate these factual disputes in this summary procedure. In view of the complex factual dispute of the present case, this Forum can’t adjudicate this matter in this summary procedure. We are, therefore, not inclined to adjudicate the present dispute due to the reasons stated above.
7. Besides, that during the course of hearing and on perusal of materials on the case record we have observed that there is no justification for the complainant to add O.P.No.3 to 6 as parties to this dispute since the original complaint and the interim application filed under Section 13 (3B) of the C.P. Act, 1986 does not disclose any allegation against O.P.No.3 to 6 hence misjoinder of these parties to this dispute is bad in law. The complainant without any justified reasons has unnecessarily made O.P. No.3 to 6 as parties to this dispute since there is not a single allegation leveled against all of them. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has filed a revision petition before Hon’ble State Commission against the interim order passed by this Forum on 20.03.2017 but without any stay thereof. In this connection, we would like to say that the order passed on 20.03.2017 by this Forum with regard to disposal of interim application of the complainant is not a sustainable order as it was a minority one. Due to the difference of opinion between the President and Member (W), the order was deferred to 24.04.2017 for hearing afresh in the bench comprising the senior member and the matter was again posted on 24.04.2017 for final disposal and accordingly the matter is heard today affording reasonable opportunities to all parties in accordance with law. In the light of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter due to devoid any merits.
8. Consequently, in the light of the above discussion and taking into account to the factual position of the case, the complaint of the complainant deserves no consideration hence dismissed due to devoid of any merits. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly, however, there is no order as to cost.
9. The order is pronounced on this 26th day of April 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to furnish copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per rules. A copy of the order be sent to the server of
