Date  : 18.06.2013

Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 6.5.2010 passed by Dist.Forum Nanded dismissing complaint case No.55/2010.

(For the sake brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as ‘complainant’ and respondent No.1 as ‘opponent credit society’)

2.       Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:

          Opponent No.1 is the credit co-operative society.  Opponent No.2 is the President of said society and opponent No.3 is the Secretary.  Complainant Shri.Bajrang Narsingrao Bandal was a employee of MSEDCL. He retired from his service in the year 2004.  He was also a member of opponent No.1 credit society. Earlier he was the Secretary of opponent No.1 said society. According to the complainant on 15.10.2005 he deposited Rs.50,000/- with opponent No.1 credit society as fixed deposit for one year and issued a cheque of Rs.50,000/- in the name of opponent No.1 credit society. However, the same cheque was not intended to be presented and encashed.  According to him he had nominally handed over that cheque to the cashier of opponent No.1 society and thereafter two days only he paid amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash to the then cashier of the credit society. But as he did not get back his cheque as the same cheque was not useful for him.

3.       Further according to complainant on receipt of cash, the cashier issued fixed deposit certificate in his name and after one year when the fixed deposit was matured he got renewed the same for further two years, showing deposit of Rs.55,000/-. He also received amount of Rs.2003/- out of the balance amount of interest.

4.       Thereafter in the year 2007 on maturity of renewed fixed deposit when the complainant claimed amount of maturity, opponent society refused to pay amount of maturity.  Therefore on 5.12.2009 he issued legal notice through his counsel to the opponent and claimed amount of deposit with interest. However, opponent did not respond his notice. Hence he has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of fixed deposit with interest and compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- more towards cost of the proceeding alleging deficiency in service.

5.       Opponents by their written version resisted the complaint on the following ground:

i)        They did not dispute that complainant was a member of the opponent No.1 credit society and on 15.2.2009 he had given cheque of Rs.50,000/- to the credit society for getting amount deposited as fixed deposit for one year and opponent society issued fixed deposit receipt.  But according to them the cheque was not encahsed and therefore no amount was deposited as fixed deposit in the name of complainant.  It is denied that complainant paid amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash as averred by complainant.  It is submitted that in the year 2005 one Punjabrao Deshmukh was the President of opponent No.1 credit society and Shri.N.G.Dawalbaje was the Secretary.  It is submitted that complainant Bajrang Bandal was from the group of said Punjabrao Deshmukh and during the tenure of said Punjabrao Deshmukh the persons or members from his group defaulcated amount of society showing such false fixed deposit receipts & committed many other irregularities.

ii)       It is further submitted by opponent that in the year 2007 managing committee of the opponent credit society is changed and thereafter it was brought to the notice to the newly elected managing committee that complainant Shri.Bajrang Bandal in collusion with the then President of society and also cashier falsely got the fixed deposit receipt without making payment. It is submitted that the cheque which was given by the complainant was presented in the bank and same was bounced. But no action was taken by the then members of the managing committee of the opponent society. However, when the newly elected managing committee took over the charge of opponent credit society, a letter was given to the complainant informing him that no amount towards the fixed deposit is received by the credit society and therefore his demand for fixed deposit is not tenable etc. It is submitted that complainant has filed false consumer complaint with malafide intention to get the amount.  It is submitted to dismiss the complaint with cost etc.

6.       On hearing both sides and considering evidence on record Dist.Forum held that complainant had received fixed deposit certificate without making payment to the credit society, falsely issuing the cheque which is also bounced and therefore complainant is not entitled to get amount of fixed deposit.  In keeping with these findings Dist.Forum dismissed the complaint.

7.       Feeling   aggrieved by that judgment and order complainant has preferred this appeal.

8.       We heard complainant Shri.Bajrang Bandal who appeared in person and also Shri.V.S.Kadam learned counsel appearing for opponent/respondent.  We also perused the written notes of arguments submitted by the complainant and by Shri.V.S.Kadam learned counsel for opponent. Further we have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copy of complaint, written version and other documents.

9.       It is submitted by complainant Bajrang Bandal that though he had issued cheque of Rs.50,000/- it was not intended to be acted upon either party. According to him when he had issued cheque to the opponent society he had prepared to pay amount in cash towards fixed deposit and accordingly immediately after two days he collected amount and paid the same to the opponent credit society through one Shri.D.K.Shinde. It is submitted that on receipt of cash, cashier of the opponent society issued fixed deposit certificate. However, the cheque which was given by him remained with the opponent society. He has also not demanded that cheque as it was not useful for him.  In support of this submission he has also submitted affidavit of Shri.D.K.Shinde.  To which it is denied by Shri.V.S.Kadam learned counsel for opponent and submitted that no amount of fixed deposit was received by society. But in collusion with the then Chairman and Secretary of the opponent No.1 society complainant falsely received fixed deposit certificate. It is submitted that the cheque which was given by the complainant to the opponent society was already bounced in the year 2005 etc. Further it is submitted that on the basis of false fixed deposit certificate complainant in collusion with the then President and Secretary of the society got managed to get the fixed deposit renewed showing deposit of Rs.55,000/- amount for two years as fixed deposit and also received amount of Rs.2003/- out of interest etc.  It is further submitted that as the complainant was from the group of the then Chairman and Secretary of the opponent credit society, he managed to do all these things and therefore when the managing committee of the opponent society took over the charge in the year 2006 reconciliation of the account of the society was done, all the irregularities committed by the then managing committee and opponent society were noticed.  Thereafter when the complainant was claiming amount of fixed deposit, he was informed in writing by sending letter etc. It is submitted that Dist.Forum considered all these facts and rightly dismissed the complaint.

10.     We find much force in the submission of Shri.V.S.Kadam learned counsel for the opponent.   Because undisputedly the cheque which was given by the complainant to the opponent society was bounced when it was presented by opponent society with State Bank of Hyderabad Branch Vazirabad, Nanded.  The same cheque was bounced in the  year 2005 only. But no action was taken by the then managing committee of the society. If really the complainant would have paid amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash immediately after two days of issuance of cheque, there could be no reason for the opponent to present the cheque in the bank for clearance. Further if the opponent society would have received cash from the complainant, it would have issued the receipt of payment of cash. Therefore the contention of complainant that he paid amount to the opponent society towards fixed deposit in cash cannot be sustained.

11.     Moreover if the complainant would have made payment in cash to the opponent society as alleged by him, opponent society would have taken its entry in the relevant register.  But no such reason is produced. However, copy of cash voucher dated 11.12.2006 is produced by the complainant showing that he received amount of Rs.2003/- out of balance amount of the maturity fixed deposit. But except the cash voucher no other record of the opponent credit society is produced by the complainant. It is disputed by the opponent that the complainant received Rs.2003/- as shown in the voucher. But it is alleged that in collusion with the then managing committee members of the opponent credit society complainant falsely received the amount of Rs.2003/- and therefore opponent were constrained to recover that amount of Rs.2003/- from the complainant. 

12.     Since undisputedly the then managing committee of the opponent society has not taken any action against complainant though his cheque was bounced, we have no hesitation to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opponents. Moreover, though it is the contention of complainant that he paid amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash to the opponent society while obtaining fixed deposit receipt no record pertaining to the source of amount of Rs.50,000/- as produced by him. Therefore the opponents have rightly refused the claim of complainant. Accordingly, Dist.Forum has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponents and rightly dismissed the complaint.

13.     In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.

                                                O   R   D   E    R

1.                 Appeal is dismissed.

2.                 No order as to cost.

3.                Copies of the judgment and order be supplied to both the parties.