KALIKA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. AND ORS. Vs. PRABHAKAR YOGIRAJ WARLE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals bearing Nos. 373/2014, 374/2014, 375/2014 and 376/2014 have been filed by the original opponent Nos. 2 and 3 against the judgment and orders of the same date i.e. 9.6.2014 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar in C.C. Nos. 138/2013, 141/2013, 139/2013 and 140/2013 respectively whereby the appellants/opponents along with original opponent No. 1 have been held liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 in all these appeals is the original complainant and respondent No. 2 is the original opponent No. 2. For better understanding the appellant No. 1 which is the Credit Cooperative Society and opponent No. 2 who is the Chairman of the said society in all the four appeals are hereinafter jointly termed as the "opponent society" whereas the respondent No. 1 in all these appeals is herein after termed as the "Complainant" and respondent No. 2 who is Ex -Manager of the said society is hereinafter termed as the "Opponent Manager". Facts of the present appeal in a nutshell are that the complainants had invested their money in long term deposit with the opponent society the details of which are as given below:

(2.) THE opponent society as well as opponent Manager appeared before the Dist. Consumer Forum and resisted the complaints by way of their written version. It was contended that these complaints suffered from the principle of non -joinder of necessary party, as they had not made the Directors of the society as party to the complaint.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and order present appeals have been filed separately by the said society and its Chairman. As the issue involved in all the four appeals is the same, it is decided to dispose of them by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, all these four appeals have been heard together today. Advocate Mr. D.A. Bide for the appellant and Advocate Mr. N.N. Sole for all the complainants and Advocate Mr. Anjanwatikar for the respondent No. 2 are present. Heard Counsel for both the sides on the point of admission and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with other necessary documents. Adv. Bide submitted that the impugned judgment and orders are challenged mainly on the two grounds, (i) The complainants while filing the complaint have not made the directors of the society as a party to the complaint and therefore these complaints suffer from the principle of non -joinder of necessary parties, and (ii) All these complainants are the members of the opponent society and therefore any grievance against the opponent society has to be made under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and therefore these complaints are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Whereas learned Counsel Mr. Anjanwatikar V.B. for the opponent Manager submitted that there was mis -appropriation in the society and inquiry is being conducted through the cooperative department. He further submitted that there are criminal proceedings also pending in the respective Court and therefore unless the enquiry is completed by the cooperative department and responsibility of the said mis -appropriation is fixed and unless the criminal proceedings are finally decided, the Dist. Consumer Forum should not have entertained these complaints.