BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1178/2009, 1179/2009 AGAINST C.C.No. 47/2009 & 70/09 DISTRICT FORUM-II,HYDERABAD.
Between:
1. The Special Officer-Incharge,
Now rep. by the Chairman,
Person in Charge Committee,
Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-op.
Credit Society Ltd.,
DTO Residency Building,
(Opp:Vaibhav), Koti
Hyderabad. Appellant/opp.party No.3
in FA 1178/09 & 1179/09
And
1. Smt.C.Sundari, W/o.C.V.Chalapati
Rao, age 60 years, Occ:Housewife,
R/o.20A, Residency Staff Quarters,
4-7-108, Isamia Bazar, Hyderabad-27. Respondent/Complainant
in F.A.No.1178/09
2. Mr.Nandiraju Murali Krishna, S/o.late
N.Venkateswara Rao, age 54 years,
Occ:Retd.Praga Tools Employee.
3. Smt.Nandiraju Nagamani W/o.N.Murali
Krishna age 48 years, Occ:Housewife,
R/o.22-1-198, Kalikaber,
Hyderabad.
4. Master Nandiraju Nagasai Varaprasad,
S/o.N.Murali Krishna, age 12 years,
Complainants 2 and 3 rep. by N.Murali Krishna,
(All are R/o. Flat No.203, Plot No.10,
Shikaram Apts., HUDA Comlex,
Kothapet, Hyderabad-35. Respondents/complainants
in F.A.No.1179/2009
5. The District Co-op. Officer,
Golconda Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, A.P.Housing Board,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
6. The Enquiry Officer,
For Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-op.
Credit Society Ltd., Regd.No.206,
O/o.Dist.Co-op. Officer, Golconda
Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, APHB, Nampally,
Hyderabad. Respondents/Opp.parties
1 and 2.
(Respondents 5 and 6/ O.Ps 1 and 2 are not necessary
Parties in these appeals).
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.Rajeswar Rao
(Common in both appeals)
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Umapathi Rao in FAs 1178/09 &
F.A.No.1179/09.
F.A.No.101/2010, & 280/2010 AGAINST C.C.No.418/2009, & C.C.No.38/2009 DISTRICT FORUM-I,HYDERABAD.
Between:
The Special Officer-Incharge,
Now rep. by the Chairman,
Person in Charge Committee,
The District Co-op. Officer,
Golconda Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, A.P.Housing Board,
Nampally, Hyderabad. Appellant/opp.party No.3
in F.A.Nos.101/10, & 280/10
And
1. Sri M.Sravan Kumar, S/o.late M.Anjaiah
Age 36 years, Occ:Business.
2. Smt.M.Jayasree, W/o.M.Sravan Kumar
Age 29 years, Occ:Tailor.
Both R/o.16-8-130/1, Kaladera,
Malakpet, Hyderabad-24. Respondents/Complainants
in F.A.No.101/2010.
3. Sri V.Murali Krishna, S/o.V.Raj
gopal, age 58 years,
Occ:Retd.Private Employee.
4. Smt.V.Varalaxmi, W/o.V.Murali Krishna,
Age 55 years, Occ:Housewife,
5. Baby Priya, D/o.Vijaya Laxmi,
Age 9 years, Occ:Student.
6. Baby Moneka Sridhar, D/o.V.Rajyalaxmi
Age 15 years, Occ:Student.
Complainants Nos.6 and 6 rep. by Guardian
Smt.V.Varalaxmi.
All R/o.Flat No.306, Plot No.10,
Mahendrakar Apts., HUDA Complex,
Hyderabad-35. Respondents/complainants
in F.A.No.280/2010
7. The District Co-op. Officer,
Golconda Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, A.P.Housing Board,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
8. The Enquiry Officer,
For Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-op.
Credit Society Ltd., Regd.No.206,
O/o.Dist.Co-op. Officer, Golconda
Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, APHB, Nampally,
Hyderabad. Respondents/Opp.parties
1 and 2.
(Respondents 7 & 8/O.Ps 1 and 2 are not necessary
Parties in this appeal).
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.Rajeswar Rao
(Common in both appeals)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Basawaraj in FA 101/10,
Mr.P.Umapathi Rao-R3-R6 in FA 280/10
FA.No. 828/2010 & 829/2010 AGAINST C.D.NO.753/2009, 754/2009 District Forum-I, Hyderabad .
Between:
Telegraph Traffic Employees
Co-Operative Credit Society rep. by its Person
In charge Committee, D.T.O.Koti
Hyderabad. Rep. by Nagendra Prasad.
..Appellants/Opp.party
in FAs.828/10 & 829/10
And
1. M.Gangadhar Rao
S/o.Late Chittiabhai
R/o.2/8,Surya Saroj Apartment
HUDA Complex, Saroornagar,
Hyderabad. …Respondent/Complainant
in FA.No.828/2010
2. B.Lakshminarayana
S/o.late Balaraju,
R/o.5-3-120, Gauthaminagar
Vanasthalipuram,
Sahebnagar Road,
R.R.District, Hyderabad-70. …Respondent/Complainant
in FA.No.829/2010
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.Rajeshwar Rao.
(Common in both appeals)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Ramakrishna
(Common in both appeals)
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
F.A.No.190/2010, 191/2010 & 307/2010 AGAINST C.C.No. 434/09, 442/09 & 410/2009, DISTRICT FORUM-I,HYDERABAD.
Between:
The Special Officer-Incharge,
Now rep. by the Chairman,
Person in Charge Committee,
The District Co-op. Officer,
Golconda Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, A.P.Housing Board,
Nampally, Hyderabad. Appellant/opp.party No.3
in F.A.Nos. 190/10, 191/10 and 307/10
And
1. Sri.D.Mallikarjun Rao, S/o.Late Chinna
Venkata Ramana,Age 73 years,
Occ.Retired Asst.Director.
2. Smt.D.R.Rajeshwari,W/o.D.Mallikarjuna Rao,
Age 67 years,Occ.Household
Both r/o.16-11-16/2/2,Plot No.96,Sripuram
Malakpet,Hyderabad-36 Respondents/Complainants
in F.A.No.190/2010.
3. Smt.D.Aparna, W/o.D.Sudheer
Age 34 years, Occ:School Assistant
4. Smt.D.Laxmi Bai, W/o.late D.Gangadhar
Age 82 years, Occ:Household.
Both R/o.17-1-197/3/1, Beside
Sivanand Hotel, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Respondents/Complainants
in F.A.No.191/2010.
5. Sri B.Basawaraj, S/o.late B.Nagappa
Age 47 years, Occ:Advocate.
6. Smt.B.Jayasree, W/o.B.Baswaraj,
Age 42 years, Occ:Housewife.
7. B.Mounika, D/o.B.Baswaraj,
Age 19 years, Occ:Student,
All are R/o.16-11-16//1/2/A, Sreepuram
Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. ..Respondents/Complainants
in F.A.No.307/2010
8. The District Co-op. Officer,
Golconda Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, A.P.Housing Board,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
9. The Enquiry Officer,
For Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-op.
Credit Society Ltd., Regd.No.206,
O/o.Dist.Co-op. Officer, Golconda
Division, Manoranjan Complex,
Block-M5, APHB, Nampally,
Hyderabad. Respondents/Opp.parties
1 and 2.
(Respondents 8 & 9/O.Ps 1 and 2 are not necessary
Parties in this appeal).
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.Rajeswar Rao
(Common in both appeals)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Basawaraj in FA 190/10 &
FA 191/10.
Mr.G.V.V.A.Prasannan in FA 307/2010
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
AND
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Since all these appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order.
F.A.No.1178/2009:
Aggrieved by the order in CC 47/09 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 2-5-2006 with the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., on the assurance that the co-operative society would pay interest at 12-14% on each deposit and a bond was also issued to that effect. Thereafter the society paid interest up to the month of August, 2008 and subsequently committed default. On 06-10-2008 the complainant approached the co-operative society for refund of the deposit amount with interest, but was informed that the society was closed. The depositors lodged a complaint with opposite party No.1 i.e. the District Co-operative Officer who appointed opposite party No.2 and 3 to enquire and run the society. The complainant approached opposite parties 2 and 3 for refund of his deposit amount but did not receive any response. Vexed with their attitude he approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant together with interest, compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs.
On behalf of opposite party No.3, Mr.N.Venugopal Sharma, Chairman PIC filed counter affidavit stating that the Telegraphic Society is not a bank and that the provisions of A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 are applicable for settlement of the dispute and that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. After closure of the society, opposite party No.2, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer as per Section 51 of A.P.C.S. Act, 1964. The Government after superseding the committee of the society, appointed PIC committee U/s.32(7) of the APCS Act, 1964 and opposite party No.3 was appointed as Chairman of the PIC to look after the affairs of the society and for preparation of the list of the depositors and borrowers of the society. The enquiry is under progress and unless the statutory enquiry is completed, refund of amounts cannot be made.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed memo stating that they are adopting the counter of opposite party No.3.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Ex.A1 and B1 to B4, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part, directing opposite party No.3 to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 14% from 1-9-2008 till the date of realization(the interest at 13% p.a. was paid till 31-8-2008). The claim against opposite parties 1 and 2 stands dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 2-5-2006 with the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., evidenced under Ex.A1. The rate of interest specified in this FDR is 13% p.a. It is the complainant’s case that interest was paid upto August, 2008 i.e. 30-8-2008 and thereafter the society defaulted in paying the interest amount. It is the further case of the complainant that when the refund of the FDR amount was requested, the society did not respond and subsequently was closed and opposite parties 2 and 3 were appointed to enquire and manage the affairs of the society. Ex.B1 are the proceedings of opposite party No.1 wherein a committee of persons were appointed to manage the affairs of the society for a period of six months i.e. from 18-10-2008. Ex.B2 dated 29-9-2008 are the proceedings of the District Co-operative Officer which states that the Secretary of the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., collected the F.D.Rs., irregularly and did not account for the amounts collected and caused deficit to the assets of the society. An enquiry was ordered U/s.51 of APCS Act 7 of 1964 authorizing the Sub Divisional Co-operative Officer to conduct an enquiry.
Exs.B1 and B2 evidence that the Secretary of the said society collected the F.D.Rs. irregularly and did not account for the amounts collected. Inspite of repeated requests the amounts due to the complainant were not paid. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties contended that W.P.No.21858/2009 marked as Ex.B5 by way of additional evidence, the Co-operative Society depositor’s Forum filed a writ before the High Court seeking direction to pay the amounts to all the depositors and to stay the payments made by the Person In charge Committee of the society to any depositor. He further drew our attention to Ex.B6 which is also filed by way of additional evidence before this Commission, which is a letter dated 06-11-2009 addressed by the Depositors Forum of the said society to the Person In charge Committee stating that the Depositors Forum has been registered and that there are 530 Member Depositors and that none of them have been given their deposit amounts and also the interest and that the Enquiry Officer in his report stated that the society has to pay a sum of Rs.56,14,73,586/- to the depositors. Page 2 of the letter is not annexed but he has annexed a list of the depositors and the amounts deposited. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the complainant is a non member and has deposited the FD amount without the sanction of the Registrar and this is contrary to the rules and bye-laws and also the guide lines issued by the Registrar on 28-2-2001. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant is not a consumer as her deposit itself is contrary to the bye-laws. There are several writs filed by the Members and the Non Members.
This Commission while dealing with a similar complaint C.C.No.57/2008 once again with respect to deposits made with the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., had addressed itself to the jural relationship and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Agricultural Credit Society v. M.Lalitha reported in I (2004) CPJ 1 SC and held that this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute of co-operative societies also. We also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.92/1998 dated 11/12/2003 reported in Volume-I, 2004 CPJ P-1 SC in which the Apex court held as follows:
‘Dispute between Members and Management of Co-op.
Society can be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora’.
We also rely on the decision of the National Commission reported in II (2008) CPJ 114 NC in which it was held as follows:
“Co-operative Societies fall within the entity of being person
and the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is
competent to file this complaint’.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.3 is that several writ petitions are pending before the Hon’ble High Court i.e. W.P.No.7430/09, 1734/09, 12928/09, 15333/09 and 21858/09.
The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in W.P.No.7430/2009 there is a prayer to implement the District Forum order and the High Court has given an interim order for implementation of the District Forum order. It is pertinent to note that the stay has not been vacated by the appellant/opposite party and is still pending before the High Court. In the absence of any specific stay, we are of the considered view that this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the bye-laws say that non members are permitted to deposit money and hence it cannot be construed that this society can issue deposits only to members. A brief perusal of the bye-laws of the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-op. Society Ltd., Regd. No.TA 206 (Ex.B1 in CC No.10.2010) does not anywhere state that deposits should be issued to Members only.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party filed written arguments in which he contended that the provisions of APCS Act in Sections 39, 47, 48 and in Rule 42 state that priority should be given to Members and that no society will enter into any transaction with a person other than the Member unless the bye-laws of the society permit it. Now to understand whether these Sections apply to the instant case or not, a brief reading of these sections is essential.
Section 39: The share or interest, of a member, in the capital of the society or of an employee in the provident fund established U/s.49 or in the contribution made by a Member or past member or from the estate of a deceased or by any officer or former officer U/s.66 or the reserve fund of the society shall not be liable for attachment or sale under any decree or order of a court, in respect of any debt or liability incurred by such member, or officer; and an official assignee or a receiver under any law relating to insolvency shall not be entitled to or have any claim on such share, interest, contribution or fund.
Section 47(i): A society shall receive deposits and raise loans only to such extent and such conditions as may be specified in the bye-laws.
Section 47(ii):A society shall not grant a loan to any person other than a Member, but it may grant loans to another society with the general or special sanction of the Registrar or to its employees on such terms as may be specified in the bye-laws.
Section 48: Same as otherwise provided in Section 47, the transactions of a society with persons other than members shall be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed.
Rule 42: No society shall enter into any transaction with a person other than a Member unless:
a) the bye laws of the society permit it to enter into such transaction and
b) the previous sanction of the Registrar has been obtained by the society for entering into such transaction.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contended that the non members deposited the amounts with the Secretary contrary to the bye-laws. It is pertinent to note that in para 10 of his written arguments the appellant/opposite party himself stated that he was appointed under Section 32(7) of APCS in super session of the previous management of the society in view of the fraud and misappropriation committed by the previous secretary of the society against whom a criminal case is pending. When the appellant/opposite party himself is admitting that there is fraud and mis-appropriation they cannot turn around and say at this belated stage that the deposits made by the non members is against the bye laws. When the bye laws themselves did not specifically exclude deposits to be given to non members. If the secretary has committed fraud or mis appropriation, the complainants in these cases cannot be made to suffer.
The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the National Commission in II (2007) CPJ 175 NC between Registrar of Co-op. Societies & Anr. v. Tamilnadu Consumer Protection Council, Trichy and others. In this decision, the National Commission observed that a person who presents a document for registration and pays stamp duty is not a consumer and that the Registrar discharges statutory duty and the Special Officer who is appointed for administration of the Co-op Societies U/s.88 cannot be made personally liable for acts or misdeeds of Co-op. Societies.
In that case the principal amount was paid to the complainants but without interest. The rate of interest also was decided at 8% p.a. The only question that arose for consideration is whether the Special Officer could be personally liable? In this case the National Commission while observing that the principal amount was already paid and that interest was decided to be paid at 8% observed that the Special Officer would make efforts to sell the immovable property and pay the amounts as suggested by the Members of the society and held that the co-op. society would be liable for refund of the deposit with accrued interest. The direction in the previous cases was for the principal amounts to be paid while the interest and compensation would be fixed as per the directions of the High Court.
We also rely on the decision of the National Commission in 2008 –NCDRC-0-31 2008(TLS) in R.P.No.2591/2007 dated 24-7-2008 between RBI v. Eswarappa in which the National Commission reiterated Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that it is in addition to and not in derogation of other provisions of law and further held as under:
To say that to mitigate the hardship in hard cases, a Committee is
appointed and that Committee grants some relief to the depositors
depending upon their requirement is, in our view, a vicious circle. For
getting refund of their money, they have to go begging from one place
to another, file one application after the other, wait for long for their
turn. All this can be avoided if proper orders are passed expeditiously.
Finally, to see that some amount paid to the consumer/depositor on the
basis of the insurance cover, as the order of winding up passed, we heard
the learned counsel Mr.Anand on behalf of the DICGC. He submitted that
the DICGC would pay the amount when it is crystallized by following the
procedure prescribed under Section 17 of the Deposit Insurance and
Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961. In our view, such a stand creates
hurdles and obstructions in getting the refund of the money invested. The Liquidator takes years for crystallizing the amount payable by the bank and the purpose of Insurance cover is frustrated. It is very difficult
for the consumer to cross such hurdles easily.
In our view, considering the delay in litigating from one fora to the other
fora and suffering by small investors it is apparent that, the observation
made by the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) I SCC 243 would aptly apply to the present case. The Court, inter alia, observed: “an ordinary citizen or a common man is
hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities”.
The Court further observed, “ in fact, to meet the long felt necessity of
protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under
ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory; the importance of the Act lies in promoting the welfare of the society, which enable the consumer to participate directly in the market economy”.
In our view, we would add that the dream of enabling the consumer to
participate directly in the market economy can be fulfilled only if there
is awareness on the part of the persons who are discharging their statutory powers.
Considering the aforesaid situation, there is no alternative but to direct the Liquidator to abide by the final order passed by the Consumer Fora,
namely the District Forum or the State Commission and to make payment
of the amount which is crystallized by the said Fora, within a period of six weeks from today”.
We also observe from the record that in a similar case, CC No.57/2008 this Commission has directed the opposite party i.e. the society to pay the principal amount and that the interest and compensation would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant/opposite party preferred an appeal before the National Commission and the National Commission vide its order dated 01-10-2010 directed the opposite party to deposit half the amount awarded by this Commission and allowed the complainant to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- on furnishing personal bond and surety. It is also pertinent to note that the Division Bench of High Court in its order dated 5-10-10 in W.P.No.23933/10 held that they are not satisfied with the merits of the case in passing the orders directing the respondents not to proceed further in F.A.No.828 and 829/2010 which is pending before this Commission and dismissed the writ petition.
We rely on the decision of the National Commission in R.P.No.1768/2000 and 1769/2000 and 2886/2005 dated 3-4-2007 in which they observed as follows:
“In view of the matter, particularly when liquidation petition for winding
up is pending before the High Court of Bombay and the fact that a
Special Committee is appointed and functioning under the High Court and
that it has drawn a plan for repayment to the depositors/investors as
quoted, we hereby direct that neither the State Commissions nor the Dist. Forums, would proceed further with the dispute which are pending against Lloyds Finance Ltd., However, it would be open to the Dist. Forums or the State Commissions to finalize the amount payable by the company (payment of interest and compensation would be subject to final orders of the special committee or the liquidator) and/or to direct the investors to lodge a claim bta1 efore the Special Committee. These directions shall be abided by Consumer Fora all over the country”.
Keeping these aforementioned judgements in view and also the judgement of the Division Bench dated 05-10-2010 of A.P.High Court, we are of the considered view that Consumer Commission/Fora have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and in the absence of any specific stay from the High Court, we rely on the decision of the National Commission and we direct the appellant to pay the principal amount as evidenced under F.D.R. and the interest and compensation would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Special Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.4,00,000/-as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.1179/2009:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Special Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.11,45,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.101/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Special Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest and costs would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.280/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest and costs would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.828/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party Person Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest and costs would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.829/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party Person Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest and costs would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Dt.22-11-2010
F.A.No.307/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Special Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.2,52,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.190/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Special Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest and costs would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.191/2010:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1178/2009, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 i.e. the Special Officer Incharge to pay the principal amount i.e. Rs.4,30,000/- as evidenced under FDR within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The interest and costs would be payable subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.22-11-2010
