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

          This appeal has been filed by org. O.P.Nos.3to7 against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint No.713/2008 decided on 20/11/2008.  While allowing the complaint filed by Shri Jalinder Balu Suryavanshi, Forum below directed all the O.Ps. including appellants to pay to the complainant a sum of `25,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 24/08/2005 pertaining to deposit receipt No.14715.  Likewise, Forum below also directed all the O.Ps. to refund amount of `30,208/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from 11/01/2008 pertaining to deposit receipt No.112/57.  Forum below imposed cost of `1,000/- on all the O.Ps. and directed them to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.  As such 5 persons have filed this appeal.

          The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-

          Complainant/Mr.Jalinder Balu Suryavashi resident of Miraj, District Sangli had deposited `25,000/- vide receipt No.14714 and `30,208/- vide another receipt No.14715.  However, it was the grievance of the complainant that no interest is being paid to him on the FDR or on the amount kept by him in the saving bank account.  He had demanded interest on both the accounts, but employees of Manohar Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. avoided to pay any interest.  Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint against Manohar Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Branch Sangli and Manohar Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Head Office at 156, Sunny Apartment, LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai and also impleaded Chairman and other Directors of the said Credit Society as O.Ps.  Forum below has sent notices to O.P.Nos.1to8, but despite service of notice, they did not attend the Forum below to contest the matter and therefore, by passing order below Exhibit-1 all of them were proceeded ex-parte.  Thereafter, Forum below on the basis of documents and affidavits placed on record held that there was deficiency in service on the part of Society and Directors of the Society and therefore, it allowed the consumer complaint and passed the impugned order which has been reproduced in the opening para of this judgement.  Aggrieved by this award, other than Credit Society, 5 persons against whom award has been passed jointly and severally have filed this appeal.

          We heard Mr.Manoj Patil, Advocate for the appellants, Ms.Sheetal Kadam, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Kiran Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3.

          We are finding that there is virtually no merit in the appeal preferred by the aggrieved persons/appellants herein.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that the appellants herein did not put in appearance in the Forum below to contest this matter.  Forum below has categorically mentioned in its judgement that all the O.Ps. were duly served but, they remained absent and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte and thereafter, considering the case made out by the respondent No.1 herein, Forum below passed ex-parte award against all the O.Ps. including all the appellants herein and directed them to refund the amount as claimed by the complainant in his complaint.

          It has been argued before us very vehemently by Advocate Mr.Manoj Patil for the appellants that appellants were not Directors of the Credit Society.  However, there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention of the appellants.  The fact that they were not Directors of the Manohar Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. should have pleaded in the Forum below by filing written version and affidavit and necessary documents, but when the appellants preferred to remain absent and allowed the Forum below to pass ex-parte award, they cannot now be heard to say that they were not Directors of the Credit Society in question.  Further, party to the proceeding is entitled to file written version and affidavit to contest the matter as they added as defendants or O.Ps.  When such persons are given chance to contest the matter, who deliberately remains absent and allows the Forum below to pass ex-parte award, then such persons cannot be given second inning by allowing the prayer of appellants’ Counsel that the matter should be remanded and they should be permitted to file written version and to contest the matter.  What is pertinent to note is that immediately they had not filed appeal.  They preferred to file appeal when they received notice in the execution proceeding from the Forum below.  So, they decided to file appeal simply to stall the execution proceeding initiated by respondent No.1 herein and when the appeal is filed with a desire to stall execution proceeding, we are of the view that such appeal should be summarily rejected there being no substance in the appeal.  In the circumstances, we pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands summarily rejected.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Amount deposited, if any by the appellants be handed over to the respondent No.1/Mr.Jalinder Balu Survyavanshi towards part satisfaction of the award.

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