Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Appeal nos.09/721 to 09/726 are bunch of appeals filed by original complainants, whose complaints have been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara by its judgement and order dated 30/3/2009.

Against the dismissal order all the original complainants have filed these appeals. Since there is common question of facts and law involved in all these appeals, by this common judgement we are disposing of all these appeals which are forming part of this bunch.  In all these complaints, complainants were either Mr.Pritam Arvind Gandhi-HUF or Mr.Pritam Arvind Gandhi in person or members of Mr.Pritam Arvind Gandhi.  All of them had deposited certain deposits with Sarvodaya Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara. Those deposits were kept for various periods and it is the grievance of the complainants in all these complaints that on maturity, amount as per terms and conditions of FDR receipts were not refunded by respondent no.1- Sarvodaya Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara or directors of the said Society. Hence they had filed complaints against society and its directors for recovery of those deposits with interest thereon. 

Directors of respondent no.1 society along with Manager and society itself filed written statement jointly and pleaded that complainant was director of respondent no.1 society from 2002 and as director he had kept some deposits. Forum below on this ground alone observed that since complainant was director of the society for some time and if he had kept deposits in respondent no.1 society in the tenure when he was director of the society, he cannot file consumer complaint against respondent no.1 society.

Society also pleaded that complainant had agreed to purchase two plots belonging to the respondent no.1 society.    However, complainant backed out to purchase those plots and asked respondent no.1 society to refund the monies as per deposit receipts enclosed with each complaint. Forum below observed in its judgement that if there is dispute between depositor on one hand and respondent- society on the other, where depositors should accept sale of immovable property belonging to the society, then that is a dispute which requires oral and documentary evidence and on this count also consumer complaint as filed by the complainant is not tenable in law.

Forum below also in its judgement held that matter was appearing to be very complicated and within the framework of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 no proper justice could be delivered. Forum below therefore was pleased to dismiss the complaints.  Aggrieved by this dismissal of the complaints, original complainants have filed these appeals.

During the pendency of the appeal, it is transpired to this Commission that respondent no.1 society has been taken over by Datta Digambar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha-respondent no.15.  Now respondent no.1 society has been amalgamated in respondent no.15 society.  Therefore respondent no.15 was added as co-respondent.

We heard submissions of Mr.A.M.Anturkar-Advocate for the appellant,              Mr.Shinde-Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4, 6 to 12 & 14, Mr.V.Talkute-Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 13, Mr.P.C.Bhosale-Advocate for respondent no.15.

We are finding that dismissal of complaints by the forum below is appearing to be bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain in law.  All the complainants were asking for in these complaints is simply refund of deposits.  Deposits may be of ordinary person, deposits may be by the person holding post of director of society, that does not mean different yardstick should be applied.  If one has deposited certain amount, then his amount will have to be refunded on maturity because there is contract between depositor and respondent no.1 society inter-se.  On maturity, every amount of FDR with accrued interest must be refunded by any banking society.  Fact that depositor was for the time being director of the society is of no use to contend that there is no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between appellant on one hand and respondent no.1-society on the other.  Now there is consumer relationship between appellant and respondent no.15- Datta Digambar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha.  Respondent no.1 society has been amalgamated in Datta Digambar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha-respondent no.15 by authorities of co-operative department.  In the circumstances, now legal duty lies upon Datta Digambar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha-respondent no.15 to refund the amount and since Datta Digambar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha-respondent no.15 was added as party during pendency of these appeals, we deem it fit and proper to quash and set aside the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing complaints and remand those complaints back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum   so that there can be proper contest now between appellant on one hand and respondent no.15 society on the other.  All defences available to the new society will be pleaded in the written statement.  But we do not agree with the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum’s finding that this is a dispute between depositor/ex-Director of respondent no.1 society.  This dispute can very well be entertained and tried by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We also find that there is no legal complication. These were the complaints simply between depositor on one hand and Pat sanstha on the other.  Therefore, these were the complaints, which can be rightly decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, but District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  shirked its responsibility and by stroke of pen, held that matter involves complicated question of law and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  is not competent to decide these complaints.  Contrary to their finding, we hold that this is a pure dispute between depositor and credit society and this can be properly adjudicated upon by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and for this purpose, by allowing these appeals, we quash and set aside dismissal orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in all these complaints. 

At this stage, Ld.counsel for the appellant makes a prayer that we should make it clear that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should allow present directors of Datta Digambar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha-respondent no.15 to be as opposite party.  His prayer is appearing to be reasonable.  To this effect application shall be made by appellant after remand of these complaints to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara who shall consider impleadment of the directors of newly added respondent no.15.  In the circumstances, we pass following order:-

                                      ORDER

1.     All the appeals are allowed.

2.     Dismissal of complaint nos.10/2009 to 15/2009 is quashed and set aside.

3.     Complaints are remanded back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara.

4.     District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara  is directed to decide the complaints afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned primarily newly added party-respondent no.15 and its directors to contest the society.

5.     District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  shall consider the application that will be filed by the appellants to implead present directors of respondent no.15-society as O.Ps and then dispose of the complaints within a period of 90 days from receipt of order passed by this Commission.

6.     All the parties are directed to appear in the forum below on 01/12/2010.

7.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.