ANDHRA BANK AND ORS., SRISAILAM BRANCH SRISAILAM A.P. Vs. AKHIL BHARTIYA BRAHAMINA KARIVENA NITYA ANNADANA SATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 439 of 2009 - Andhra Bank and Ors. v. Akhil Bhartiya Brahamina Karivena Nitya Annadana Satram Srisallam by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No.1 Society registered under the Societies Registration Act had several S.B. Accounts and one of them is S.B.A/c No.909 in the branch of opposite party no.1/Petitioner No.1 since several years. The said account was operable by the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Society together. The cheques signed both by the Secretary and the Treasurer alone were being accepted for drawing of amounts from the accounts of the complainant Society. While so when two of the office bearers of the Society by names T. Rama Moorthy/OP No. 4/Respondent No. 4, the then Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurer and Ch. Thyagaraja Sarma the then Vice President of the complainant started creating trouble. As per the demand of the members of the Executive Committee of the Society, the Secretary of the Society held Executive Committee Meetings on 19.2.2006 and passed resolution to strip off the powers of Joint Secretary-cum-Treasurership and Vice Presidentship by electing Dr. Venugopal as the new Treasurer. The said resolution was duly intimated to opposite party no.1 by its letter dated 22.02.2006 enclosing a notarized Xerox copy of the resolution of the Executive Body of the Society and requested to recognize the newly elected treasurer and his signatures in the place of the removed treasurer. The first opposite party accepted the change of Treasurership of the complainant Society and honoured cheque bearing NO.012843 dated 4.3.2006 for Rs.30,000/- but dishonoured the cheque bearing No.012844 issued in favour of T.Govinda Krishnaiah Setty for sum of Rs.16,045/- towards printing expenses on the ground that the accounts of the Society has been freezed. The complainant society addressed letter dated 19.5.2006 to the first opposite party marking copies to opposite parties no.2 and 3/Petitioner No. 2 and 3 questioning the unilateral freezing of accounts and the dishonour of the cheque and also requested them to immediately withdraw the freezing of the Satram accounts. Opposite party no.1 gave reply dated 5.6.2006 justifying his action of freezing S.B.A/c of the complainant in conformity with the constitution of bye laws of the complainant Satram. The enquiries made by the complainant Society revealed that with the collusion of the erstwhile office bearers of the complainant Society the opposite party no.1 honoured the following cheques issued by the erstwhile office bearers of the complainant Society. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_128_LAWS(NCD)3_2017_1.html</FRM> The complainant submits that opp.party no.1 ignored the cheque book already issued in favour of the complainant Society and has even favoured them by issuing a fresh cheque book to them. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.

(3.) OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that since the account holder is the Society the first opposite party relied on the resolution and honoured the cheque issued by Dr. Venugopal and MDY Ram Murthy. Thereafter there was objection by T.Ram Murthy stating that action of M.D.Y. Rama Murthy and other in removing T. Ram Murthy is illegal. The first opposite party after examining the contention of T. Ram Murthy decided to freeze the account. But subsequently another resolution was received about the election of T. Ram Murthy as General Secretary and O.A. Mallik as Treasurer. Copy of proceedings of the Incharge president and resolution of the governing body of complainant Society were received by the opposite party no.1 wherein it was stated that the Board meeting of the complainant Society was convened on 4.5.2006 and it elected Sri T. Ram Murthy as General Secretary and Sri O.A. Mallik as Treasurer. They also sent their specimen signatures for operating accounts. They also enclosed copy of FIR filed against M.D.Y. Ram Murthy, G. Rama Rao, K. Radha Krishna Murthy for the offences under Section 403, 406, 408 and 420. Sri M.D.Y. Ram Murthy filed O.O.P. No.18 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool against T. Ram Murthy, Thaygaraja Sarma and K.V. Prasad seeking declaration that the petitioner should continue as secretary of complainant society and to declare the claim of the respondents therein and 39 Committee members as illegal. The dispute is a Consumer Dispute and it is to be settled either before arbitrator or before the District Judge as per Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act. M.D.Y. Ram Murthy instead of getting necessary orders with regard to operation of accounts by filing application in O.O. P. no.58 of 2005 has initiated parallel litigation. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 and 3 adopted written statement filed by OP No. 1. OP No. 4 resisted complaint, but denied status of the complainant as Secretary of complainant Society and thereby his authority to file the case. As per Rule 14 of the Bye-laws of the Society, the President alone is competent for suing and being sued for the said Society. Sri M.D.Y. Ram Murthy has been removed from the post of Secretary as per the constitution and opposite party no.4 was elected as the Secretary of the complainant Society and a copy of resolution of the Governing Body was sent to opposite party no.1 informing the change in the Executive Committee. The tenure of Sri M.D.Y. Ram Murthy as Secretary of the complainant Society expired by February, 2004 itself and a General Body meeting was convened to be held on 23.1.2005 at Srisailam for election of the new body but he managed to postpone the elections. Thereafter he filed a petition in O.P.No.18 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act-2001 to declare that he shall continue as Secretary of the said Society and the said petition is still pending before the said Court. Since the matter is already seized by the Civil Court, this complaint is maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 4,90,000/- with 12% p.a. interest to complainant and OPs were directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 to 3 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.