BAJIRAO TANAJI BHANAWADE Vs. BAJIRAO BAPU AGLAWE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition by the Chairman of Pratapgad Co-operative Credit Society (for short "the Society"), Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint, is to the order dated 6. 2. 2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. FA/12/756. By the said order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 13. 3. 2012 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Thane (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 229/2009 and has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

(2.) In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondents, against him and the Secretary of the Society, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, who, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of the Society, in not refunding the amounts of Rs. 67,000/- and Rs. 57,000/-, invested by them with the Society under a deposit scheme, christened as "Damduppat", on 10. 2002 and 3. 11. 2002 respectively, the District Forum had directed both the Petitioner and the Secretary of the Society, to refund to the Complainants the sums of Rs. 1,36,773/- and Rs. 1,14,724/-, being the matured value of the said deposits, along with interest @ 12% p. a. from 14. 8. 2007 and 8. 2007 respectively till the date of actual realization. The District Forum had also directed the said Opposite Parties to pay to each of the Complainants, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation. Both were made liable to pay the said amounts jointly and severally. It may be noted at this juncture itself that the aforesaid deposits were to mature for repayment on 14. 8. 2007.

(3.) Since the factum of the deposits at the time when the Petitioner was incharge of the affairs of the Society as its Chairman, and their non-refund on maturity is not in dispute, we deem it unnecessary to burden he order by stating the facts, giving rise to the filing of the Complaint in extenso. It would suffice to note that on maturity of the said deposits, the Complainants issued notice dated 20. 9. 2009 and 12. 10. 2009 for refund of the said amounts. However, having failed to elicit any response to the said notice, and left with no other option, the Complaint came to be filed, in which the afore-noted orders have been passed. Hence, the present Petition.