Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs Jyotiben Dansinh Mori

THESE revision petitions arise out of the common order of State Commission; hence, decided by one judgment. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.01.2012 in Appeal Nos. 441 to 446 of 2010 - Jyotiben Dansinh Mori Vs. Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Jaysinhbhai @ Jesingbhai Sidibhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Ranvirbhai Naranbhai Vainsh & Ors. Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Dansinhbhai Mulabhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog & Anr., Jayaben Dansinhbhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. and Danabhai Bhimabhai Chauhan & Ors. Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') by which, while allowing appeals, order of District Forum dismissing complaints was set aside and complaints were allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that opposite parties/petitioners is a Society registered under Cooperative Societies Act and engaged in business of production of sugar and bye -products by purchase of sugarcane. OP was accepting money from public as deposit for the last several years and was paying interest on such deposits. Complainants deposited money with the OPs, but OP failed to return the maturity amount along with interest. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaints before District Forum. OP resisted complaints and submitted that complainants should have raised a dispute under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. It was further submitted that on account of drought in the year 2000 -2001 in the State of Gujarat, OP ''s factory could not function well and it was closed for 3 financial years and there was no income and there was demand by the depositors for withdrawal of all the deposits. It was further submitted that Board of Directors of OP called meeting of all depositors on 26.1.2008 with an advance intimation to all the depositors which was also attended by complainant Dansingbhai Mulabhai Mori and it was unanimously decided that amount deposited as on 31.3.2001 will be refunded to the depositors by way of equal instalments, as per resolution. It was further submitted that approximately 4500 depositors except the complainants gave their consent to the aforesaid scheme and now complainants are estopped from raising objections to the resolution and demanding money and prayed for dismissal of complaints. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaints, but directed OP to pay amount as per scheme. Appeals filed by the complainants were allowed by learned State Commission by impugned order and OPs were directed to pay respective amounts with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till payment and further granted Rs.20,000/ - towards mental harassment and Rs.5,000/ - towards cost against which these revision petitions have been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent in person and in the capacity of authorised representative of the respondents and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as complainant Dansingbhai Mulabhai Mori was also present in the meeting and unanimously it was resolved in the meeting dated 26.1.2008 to make payment as per scheme, complainants are estopped from challenging that scheme and are not entitled to get their money along with interest and order passed by learned District Forum was in accordance with law, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeals; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, authorized representative of respondent submitted that respondents are not members of the appellant -Society and they have not given any written consent to the resolution; hence, they are not estopped from challenging resolution and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.

IT is admitted case of the parties that complainants deposited money with the OP and OP failed to return amount with interest on maturity. It is also not disputed that General Meeting was called by OP on 26.1.2008 and one of the complainants Dansingbhai Mulabhai Mori also participated in the meeting. It is also not disputed that Chairman took final decision in the meeting for repayment of money and framed scheme, but this resolution was not signed by complainants. In the written statement OP submitted that out of more than 4500 depositors, all the depositors except the complainants gave their written consent for the aforesaid scheme. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant did not agree with the repayment scheme framed by OP. Perusal of proceedings of meeting also reveals that complainant Dansingbhai Mulabhai Mori agreed not to get interest subject to payment of principal amount in one year and if amount is not paid in one year, Society was to pay amount with interest. Other complainants except Dansingbhai Mulabhai Mori did not participate in the meeting and learned Counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record any consent given by complainants for accepting resolution dated 26.1.2008 and in such circumstances, complainants are not estopped from demanding principal amount with interest.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Hon ''ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (1) ABR 252 - M/s. Calvin Properties and Housing Vs. Green Fields Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. in which it was held that when General Body of the Society has approved the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement by overwhelming majority, merely because the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not acceptable to the appellants, who are in minuscule minority (only two out of twelve members), cannot be the basis not to abide by the decision of the overwhelming majority. It was further observed that once a person becomes a member of the Cooperative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and Bye -laws. I agree with the law laid down by the Hon ''ble High Court, but as respondents are depositors and not members of OP and petitioner has accepted deposits from the respondents to be returned on maturity with interest, aforesaid judgment does not help to the petitioner.

IN the absence of written consent from the respondents, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and directing petitioners to refund principal amount with interest and in awarding money towards litigation cost.

LEARNED State Commission further awarded Rs.20,000/ - towards mental harassment to the complainants. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside order of State Commission to this extent, as State Commission has already awarded interest on the deposited amount and almost 4500 depositors have accepted scheme framed by petitioner.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petitions filed by the petitioners are partly allowed and order affirming grant of Rs.20,000/ - to the complainants towards mental harassment by District Forum is set aside and rest of the order dated 16.01.2012 in Appeal Nos. 441 to 446 of 2010 - Jyotiben Dansinh Mori Vs. Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Jaysinhbhai @ Jesingbhai Sidibhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Ranvirbhai Naranbhai Vainsh & Ors. Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Dansinhbhai Mulabhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog & Anr., Jayaben Dansinhbhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. and Danabhai Bhimabhai Chauhan & Ors. Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') is upheld.