Pradip Vilas Bhat vs Ekta Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt

THE petitioners in this revision petition are former Directors of respondent No.2 Shri Jyotirling Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Mahadeo Galli, Gargoti, Tal Bhudargad, district Kolhapur. Respondent No.1 Society filed a consumer complaint against respondent No.2 Society and its Directors including the petitioners alleging deficiency in service in respect of certain deposits made with respondent No.2 Society. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners as well as other opposite parties.

DISTRICT Forum Kolhapur on appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners and other opposite parties as under: - "1) The complaint of the complainant is allowed.

2) The opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 individually and jointly and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 11 jointly shall give amounts of following call deposits to the complainant and give rate of interest as mentioned in the deposit receipts on the said amount till 21.3.2009 and thereafter shall give 6% per annum till getting of entire amount Sr. No. Receipt No. Date of Deposit Amount Deposit Interest Rate 1 1270 15/04/99 20,000/ - 17.5% 2 1279 13/05/99 25,000/ - 17.5% 3 1283 25/05/99 25,000/ - 17.5% 4 1285 29/05/99 25,000/ - 17.5% 5 1293 25/06/99 20,000/ - 17% 6 1295 25/06/99 20,000/ - 17% 7 1367 01/03/00 50,000/ - 16% 8 1378 05/04/00 25,000/ - 16% 9 1456 10/11/00 15,000/ - 16%

3) The opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 individually and jointly and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 11 jointly shall give to the complainant Rs.1,000/ - for mental agony and Rs.1,000/ - for expenses of the complaint application."

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioners approached the State Commission in appeal and challenged the order on several grounds. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the District Forum. This has led to the filing of revision petition. Besides other pleas, the petitioners have assailed the impugned orders of the Foras below on the ground that both the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the petitioners are former Directors of respondent No.2 Society and they seized to be Directors by afflux of time in July, 2000. Not only this they have tendered their resignations on 12.1.2004. It is contended that the Foras below have failed to appreciate that the petitioners being Directors could not be held personally liable for deficiency, if any, committed by the respondent No.2 Society. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Co -ordinate Bench of this Commission dated 17.4.2013 in the matter of Miraj Urban Co -operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Madhukar Deval and Ors. wherein it was observed thus: - "2. Learned State Commission made the following observations: -

"In this appeal original opponents/Directors of Miraj Urban Co -op. Bank Ltd. challenged the above referred order as far as they are concerned, namely, clause (c ) of the operative part of the impugned order, which is against them. Since Miraj Urban Co -op.Bank Ltd. or complainant did not file any appeal, the order as against them reached finality in view of section 24 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As far as present appellants are concerned, according to complainant, they were the Directors of Miraj Urban Co -op. Ltd. NO joint or several liability, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could be fastened upon them for the alleged deficiency in service in view of the decision of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in the matter of Sou.Varsha Ravindra Isai V/s. Sou.Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari and Ors., 2011 AIR(Bom) 68 Therefore, appeal as against the appellants to the extent of the order which is against them, supra, is to be allowed."

We see no flaw in this observation. The Directors cannot be held personally liable or jointly and severally liable as per the Law of the Land. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed."

LEARNED Ms. (Dr.) Vidhya Wakale, Advocate has fairly conceded that the above noted proposition of law enumerated by the Co -ordinate Bench cannot be disputed and submitted that so far as the petitioners are concerned, revision petition may be allowed protecting the right of the respondent No1 to execute the order of the Foras below against the other respondents.

WE have perused the judgment of Co -ordinate Bench relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners and we find no reason to differ from their finding on question of law. Accordingly, we are of the view that the petitioners being Directors cannot be held personally liable for the deficiency committed by the respondent No.2 Society particularly when there is no evidence of their personal involvement qua the deficiency shown by the counsel for the respondent/complainant.

REVISION petition is, therefore, allowed, impugned orders of the Foras below are set aside qua the petitioners Directors. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the respondent/complainant to execute the order against the Co -operative Society/Official Liquidator.