MEGHALAYA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHILLONG
BEFORE
Honble President Mr. Justice P.K. Musahary (Retd.)
Honble Senior Member Mr. Ramesh Bawri
F.A. No.3 of 2014
The Chairman
Women Thrift and Credit
Co operative Society Ltd
Iawmawsiang, Jowai
…………………….Appellant
Versus
Sri Madal Sumer
Panaliar, Jowai,
West Jaintia Hills District
………………….Respondent
For the Appellant Mr. H. Kharmih, Advocate
Mr. L. Shongwan, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. P. Nongbri, Advocate
Smt. A. Thangkhiew, Advocate
Date of Judgment & Order 19.06.2015
Judgment and Order
Per Mr. Justice (Retd) P.K. Musahary, President This appeal is preferred against the order dated 06.02.2014 passed in Consumer Case No. 53 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai (District Forum in short).
2. The relevant facts as could be gathered from the pleadings of the parties before the District Forum are that the Respondent deposited Rs.80,000 in the account of his minor son Sri Chewon Chyrmang opened with the Appellant society. One Smt. Rilung Sumer was engaged as an Agent of the Appellant society. She used to collect the daily deposits from the Respondent but defaulted in depositing some amounts in the account and misused misappropriated the amounts. The Appellant society failed to pay the entire matured amount with the assured interest. The balance amount due to the Respondent is Rs.53,000
3. The District Forum, vide its impugned order, directed the Appellant society to release the actual payment to the complainant and make the admissible payments in full or in installments to the complainant within a period of three months and close the complainants accounts on expiry of the period granted and after due release of all permissible amounts.
4. We have heard Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P. Nongbri, learned counsel for the Respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, without pressing on all the 14 grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal, concentrated his arguments on the following points only in order to press his prayer that the impugned order be set aside and or quashed
- That the Respondent failed to appear before the District Forum on many dates.
- That although 28.11.2013 was fixed for evidence, no evidence was recorded in the case.
- That the learned District Forum fixed determined the amount of liability without consulting the record of the Appellant society.
It is worth mentioning here that no ground denying the vicarious liability of the Appellant on the amounts allegedly not deposited by Smt. Rilung Sumer, agent of the society, has been taken in this Appeal and the Appellant therefore cannot take this ground in any further proceedings.
6. While the first ground is not borne out by the records at all, the Appellants submission that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non recording of evidence of witnesses and non examination of records, is quite reasonable and sound. The records do not show that the District Forum recorded any evidence on 28.11.2013 as per its own order dated 19.11.2013, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. It must not be forgotten that Section 13(2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 mandates that the District Forum is required to settle disputes only on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties.
7. It must however also be noted that, as against the Respondents claim for payment of Rs.80,000, the Appellant in Para 12 of its WS stated that the Respondent deposited a sum of Rs.27,000 only. In view of the above statement, the Appellant is liable to pay Rs.27,000 to the Respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the disputed portion of the amount has not been determined calculated on the basis of record maintained by the Appellant society or evidence adduced by the parties. We accept this position. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the disputed amount is required to be examined and proved by examining the relevant records of the appellant society and appreciation of evidence, oral and or documentary, to be adduced by the parties in support of their cases.
8. Upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal stands partly allowed holding, however, that the principle of vicarious liability of the Appellant is applicable in the present case. The appellant is directed to make payment of the admitted amount to the Respondent, if not yet paid, leaving the disputed amount to be decided by the District Forum based on relevant records and evidence to be adduced by the parties in accordance with law. The matter stands remanded to the District Forum for the limited purpose of determining the amount due to the Respondent as indicated above within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order along with the records. With the above observations and directions the appeal stands disposed of. Return the records forthwith. Also return the deposit made by the Appellant when filing the Appeal.
SENIOR MEMBER PRESIDENT
