Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Maindargi

Opponent No. 1 through Lrd. Adv. Bhagat

Opponent No. 11 present in person.

Other opponents are absent

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

                                                  J U D G M E N T

       06/06/2014                                                                 

          This complaint is filed by the consumer against the Co-operative bank for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant no. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife.  They are residents of Rajashree Colony, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune.  The opponent no. 1 is the co-operative bank and the opponent no. 2 to17 are the directors of the said bank.  The complainants have account in the opponent no. 1 bank.  The opponent no. 2 to 17 are duly elected as Directors of the said bank.  The opponent no. 1 is doing banking business through various branches.  It has branch at Yerwada, Pune.  On 9/2/2010, the complainant no. 2 had invested Rs. 1,00,000/- in fixed deposit scheme for the period of 46 days.  The agreed rate of interest on the said deposit was 5% p.a. and the date of maturity was 24/01/2011.  The complainant no. 1 had maintained saving account with the said bank and an amount of Rs. 4,08,349/- is deposited in the said account.  On 24/01/2011, the complainants have visited at the Yerwada branch for withdrawal of the amount from both the accounts.  However, the Branch Manager has informed that the bank is not in a position to return the amount till March 2011.  The complainants had waited till last week of March 2011 and again visited the branch.  At that time the Branch Manager informed that the bank is facing problems and till end of June 2011, it is not in a position to return the amount.  Thereafter in the first week of July again the complainants visited the bank and demanded the amount.  When they made enquiry, it was revealed that the Directors of the bank had not followed proper procedure and sanction the loan to non eligible persons.   Hence the bank came into the trouble.  Both the complainants were in need of money.  The opponents have caused deficiency in service by not refunding their amounts.  Hence, they have claimed refund of fixed deposit amount along with interest Rs.1,10,000/-, amount of saving account Rs. 4,08,349/-.  They have further claimed compensation for physical and mental sufferings to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, notice charges Rs. 3,000/- and expenses of complaint.

2]      The opponent no. 1 resisted the complaint by fling written version, in which it has flatly denied the contents of the complaint.  According to the opponent no. 1 the relation between the complainant and the opponent no. 1 are not as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’.  Reserve Bank of India has put restrictions on the bank and Liquidator is appointed.   The license of the banking is cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India and the procedure of winding up has been started.  In such circumstance, this complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Forum, as the permission of Liquidator is not obtained. 

3]      The opponent no. 11 has filed written version and stated that he had submitted his resignation long back i.e. prior to the alleged transaction.  Hence, he is not liable for deficiency in service and his name should be deleted.

4]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS    :-

5]      It is not in much dispute that the complainants have kept Rs.1,00,000/- in fixed deposit and an amount of Rs. 4,08,349/- in saving account.  But the complainants have suppressed the material fact i.e. the opponent bank has gone in Liquidation and the Reserve Bank of India has put restrictions on the transactions of the bank.  On behalf of the opponent, representative has filed affidavit and disclosed that the Reserve Bank of India has put restrictions on the transactions of the bank and it is not possible for the bank to return amount, which is referred by the complainants in the complaint.   But the opponent no. 1 has also brought to the notice of this Forum that in view of section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 until and unless permission is obtained from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act, the proceeding can not be initiated against the bank.  It is also contended that the Liquidator is not made party in the present proceeding and on that ground also the complaint is not maintainable.  The learned Advocate for the complainants argued that in view of section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, there prohibition for initiating any proceeding in civil court and in order to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum, there are no restrictions.  In that context, the reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra State in first appeal No. 648/2010, 649/2010 and 854/2010 decided on 20/09/2011.  It has been observed in the said judgment that as the Reserve Bank of India had cancelled banking business license of the bank under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Liquidator is appointed, in absence of any permission obtained from the authority, the proceeding can not be initiated.  Similar are the facts of the present proceeding.  In the present proceeding also Liquidator is appointed and banking license of the opponent no. 1 is cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India and restrictions are put upon the bank.  In such circumstances, it is the considered opinion of the Forum that, as the complainants have not taken permission from the Registrar of Co-operative Society before initiating proceeding, this complaint is not maintainable.    In the result the Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order.

** O R D E R **

1. The complaint is dismissed with no

order as to the costs.

                   2.       Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.

3.       Parties  are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed. 

Place – Pune

Date- 06/06/2014