ASHRAFBI KHUTUBUDDIN NALBAND Vs. SHEHTAJ & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five Revision Petitions, by the Complainants/Decree Holders, are directed against a common order dated 16.10.2015, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No. 1468, 1461, 1466, 1476 And 1497 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the orders, dated 02.09.2013 and 06.09.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Belgaum (for short "the District Forum") in Execution Petitions No. 264, 706, 268, 267 of 2011 and 59 of 2012. By the said orders, the District Forum had allowed the Execution Petitions, filed by the Decree Holders against Respondents No. 1 and 2, who were stated to be the Chairperson and Manager/Secretary of Millat Women's Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., in which they had made interest bearing deposits from time to time, for enforcement of the orders dated 03.01.2011, 22.07.2011 and 10.11.2011, passed by the District Forum in Complaint Cases No. 210, 755, 211 and 209 of 2010 and 295 of 2011. These Complaints were filed against the Chairperson and the Secretary of the said Society, alleging deficiency in service on their part in not refunding the amounts deposited by them with the Society, along with accrued interest, on maturity of the deposits on different dates. In the first instance, while accepting the Complaints, the District Forum had directed the Respondents to pay to the Complainants the amounts mentioned in the respective orders, along with interest ranging between 13% and 14% p.a., together with costs, quantified at Rs.2,000/- in each of the cases.

(2.) Since the cases have a chequered history, a brief reference to the material facts would be necessary. These are: Allured by the high interest bearing money deposit scheme, launched by the Society, the Complainants had made deposits with the said Society from time to time. Having failed to get refund of the amounts along with interest on maturity, the Complainants filed Complaints against the Chairperson and Manager/Secretary of the Society, by designation and not by name, although at the time of deposits and then maturity, admittedly, the Respondents were the Chairperson and the Secretary of the Society respectively. It seems that because of certain events with regard to the functioning of the Society, the notices in the Complaints were served on the said Opposite Parties by publication. The Opposite Parties ignored the notices, ostensibly for the reasons that the name of the Chairperson and the Secretary were not mentioned on the notices. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte by the District Forum.

(3.) On evaluation of the material placed before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaints and passed the afore-noted orders against the Opposite Parties. However, as the directions issued to the Society, through the Chairperson and the Secretary, were not complied with, the Complainants/Decree Holders filed Execution Petitions for enforcement of the said directions.