Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.M.P.Kasar Patil-Advocate for the original opponent nos.1&3, Mr. Manoj Mulchandani-Advocate for original complainants and Mr.Sharad Kokate-Advocate for original opponent no.2.
Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law.
These appeals takes an exception to an order dated 08/04/2011 in A/434/11 which is the original order in consumer complaint no.330/2010, Ravindra Chimanlal Juneja and another v/s. Mig Ozar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit; passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik, while in Appeal no.690/11 order under challenge is dated 30/06/2011, which refers to amended order passed in consumer complaint no.330/2010, Ravindra Chimanlal Juneja and another v/s. Mig Ozar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit. This amended order is passed referring to the original order dated 08/04/2011.
The case of the original complainants Ravindra Juneja & Poonam Juneja is that they have kept deposits with Mig Ozar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit and the consumer complaint was filed to get refund the unpaid deposit amounts. Forum decided this consumer complaint by its order dated 08/04/2011 and, thereafter, as appeared from the order dated 30/06/2011, an amended order was passed consequent to application made for amending to the original order dated 08/04/2011.
At the first instance, once the order was passed on 08/04/2011, the forum become functious officio and it had no power to either review or pass any other order. A useful reference on the point can be made to recent judgement of the apex court (judgement passed by Bench of Hon’ble three judges) in Civil Appeal no.4307/2007 with Civil Appeal no.8155 of 2001 decided on 19/08/2011, in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & others v/s. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & another, (Quorum Hon’ble Dalveer Bhandari, Hon’ble Mukundakam Sharma, Hon’ble Anil R.Dave, JJJ). It is finally now settled that Consumer Fora or the forum has no power to review its own order.
Other aspect is that though, admittedly, Mig Ozar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit with whom deposits were kept is under liquidation and liquidator is appointed who is also made a party in the consumer complaint. When we made enquiry with Ld.counsel appearing for the original complainant, about compliance of section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the answer came in negative. No such permission is obtained from the Registrar. Under the circumstances, consumer complaint or related proceeding in appeal cannot be continued.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal no.690/2011 stands dismissed.
A/434/2011 is allowed. Impugned order dated 08/04/2011 is set aside as well as amended order dated 30/06/2011 also stands set aside.
In the result, consumer complaint no.330/2010 stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 12th October, 2011.
