ARUN KASHINATH PINGALE Vs. MADHUKAR SONANIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioners and respondents were heard at length on admission issue. To appreciate the rival contentions raised with all ingenuity, the salient features of the case need to be noticed with brevity.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix are that petitioners who run Suyog Departmental Stores floated a Scheme "Suyog Thev Yojana" attracting their customers to make deposit of sums with them on monthly interest payable @ 2% by them on deposits, in term of either discount on the goods purchased, or cash, which followed execution of agreement between the parties sometimes in May, 2001 and July, 2001. Though this arrangement of giving discount on purchases made either in cash or in term of interest functioned for some period smoothly when interest accrued on deposits used to be paid to the creditors, after petitioners failed to make payment of interest accrued on deposits, respondents having taken recourse to consumer Grievance Redressal Agency, filed a complaint with District Forum. Complaint was resisted by petitioners both on maintainability of complaint and also on merit. The issue of belated filing of complaint, District Forum having no pecuniary jurisdiction, in view of total relief claimed including the principal and interest having exceeded more than Rs. 21,00,000, the contract between the parties having got frustrated on account of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors proceedings pending before Special Court, petitioners being not service providers for any consideration, and transaction in question between the parties being entirely a loan transaction and relationship of the petitioners qua the respondents being that of debtors and creditors, were raised before Fora below. District Forum, however, having over-ruled contentions, raised on behalf of petitioners, while accepting complaint, directed petitioners to refund a sum of Rs. 17,00,000 with interest @ 24% from December, 2001 to respondents in terms of agreements executed between parties. Compensation of Rs. 6,000 was also awarded for mental agony and cost of proceeding. State Commission too, having negated those contentions raised, while upholding finding of District Forum, dismissed appeal with cost of Rs. 2,000. Now the deck is ready to appreciate the contentions raised before us with factual backgrounds noticed above.

(3.) CONTENTIONS were raised on behalf of petitioners that causes of a number of customers who executed agreements on different dates were clubbed together for filing a complaint without obtaining permission of District Forum as enjoined in Section 13(6) of CP Act, 1986, and reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, II (2008) CPJ 5 (SC)=IV (2008) SLT 62=2008 CTJ 568 (SC) (CP). In that case even though complainant did not represent interest of other consumers, complaint was filed without permission of District Forum as enjoined under Section 13(6) of the said Act. It was in this back drop that complaint on this count also was considered to be not maintainable. Contentions raised merits rejection for the simple reason that Complainant No. 1 had filed complaint espousing causes of complainant Nos. 2 to 5, he being Power of Attorney Holder for them. Filing of complaint by complainant No 1 was as such obviously not in volition of Section 13(6) of the Act. Yet other contention raised was that since respondents had already initiated criminal proceeding under Sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999, which was pending before Special Court, Thane and the matter being sub judice, filing of complaint before Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency was hopping the other Fora and also abuse of process of Forum.