ADARSH SAHAKARI GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHA Vs. BABUSING ROTHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial MEMBER:- The present Appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 22-9-2000 in a Complaint Case no. 117/2000 passed by District Consumer forum, Jalgaon.

(2.) The respondent/complainant's case before the Forum is that, the complainant is chairman of Adarsh Sahkari Gruh Nirman sanstha, Chalisgaon. The society filed the arbitration Suit bearing No. 235/2006 for the recovery of Rs. 1,42,754/- in co-operative Court Jalgaon. It is contended that, the opponent was engaged as an Advocate on behalf of Adarsh Sahakari Gruh Nirman sanstha. It is contended that, the opponent was paid the amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards his fees as a Advocate. He was also paid the amount of Rs. 900/- towards traveling expenses and daily allowance. It is contended that, the opponent who was also the Chairman of the society at the relevant period did not attend arbitration case before the Co-operative Court Jalgaon. It is contended that, the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon dismissed the Arbitration Suit bearing No. 235/96, vide order dated 17-4-1998. It is contended that, even after dismissal of the suit the opponent did not inform this fact to the society for about 1 and half years. The Society suffered the loss, and thus, the society gave notice dated 30-12-99 by RPAD to the opponent. The opponent did not accept the notice, and thus the society approached the Forum for recovery of Rs. 1,42,754/- and also Rs. 50, ooo/- towards compensation.

(3.) The opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint. It is contended that, the complaint is a false and it is filed with malafied intention. It is contended that, the opponent had filed two suits for the recovery of amount against the Pitambar Patil when the opponent was Chairman of the Cooperative society, and thus he filed the false complaint against him. It is also contended that, as per by-laws the chairman alone is not entitle to take the decision of the society. It is contended that, no evidence is adduced against him. It is further contended that, advocate Pramod Patil was appointed as an advocate in the case in question. The opponent was to assist him for required information and the documents. It is also contended that, the opponent did not receive any sort of Advocate fees.