| First Appeal No. A/10/1071 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/08/2010 in Case No. 114/09 of District Kolhapur) |
| | | | 1. SHRI SITARAM DATTRAY PATIL | | KAPILESHWAR PO TURAMBE TAL RADHANAGARI | | KOLHAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. SHRI GAJANAN MAHARAJ WATER SUPPLY SOC LTD KAPILESHWAR | | KAPILESHWAR TAL RADHANAGARI | | KOLHAPUR | | MAHARASHTRA | | 2. MARUTI VITHU VAROTE, CHAIRMAN, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 3. MARUTI DATTATRYA PATIL, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 4. BHAU BHIVA KHAMKAR, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 5. BALASAHEB DATTATRAYA SHELKE, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 6. RAMCHANDRA BHAGOJI PATIL, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 7. RAJARAM DATTU MHALUNGEKAR, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 8. ARUNDHATI ANANDRAO SHELKE, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 9. SATTAPPA SHANKAR PATIL, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 10. ANANDA ISHWAR BHOI, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 11. SATTAPPA BABU KHAMKAR, MEMBER, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR | | 12. TUKARAM MANKU BHARAMBAL, SECRETARY, | | R/AT KAPILESHWAR, P.O. TURAMBE, TAL. RADHANAGARI, DIST. KOLHAPUR |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: Heard Appellant in person. In the instant case, Original Complainant has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 24.08.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘Forum below’ in short), whereby consumer complaint No.114/2009, Sitaram Dattatray Patil V/s. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sahakari Panipurawatha Sanstha Ltd. & Ors., stood dismissed,. It is the case of the Appellant/Original Complainant that he had kept deposit of Rs.3,000/- on 05.06.1998 and another amount of Rs.2,000/- on 30.10.1998. However in spite of maturity, those deposits were not returned and therefore, he filed the consumer complaint. Opposite Party resisted the consumer complaint stating that it is not the deposit as can be understood in normal course. It is given as per the direction to raise capital for Respondent No.1/Original Opposite Party No.1 and it is to be refunded as agreed on fulfillment of certain conditions. The entire loan of the said Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sahakari Panipurawatha Sanstha Ltd. was refunded. Therefore, Forum below rightly considered this aspect and dismissed the consumer complaint stating that this is not the consumer dispute and there is no deficiency in service.
We find the appeal is devoid of any substance and hence, pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal stands dismissed in limine. (ii) No order as to costs. | |
