SHANKARRAO N KADAM vs PRABHAKAR SITARAM DHAMNEKAR

APPEAL No. 2086/2006 and Revision Petition No. 95/2005 arise out of different orders passed by the Members including President at different point of time. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal and the Revision Petition by this common order.

WE heard Mr. A. V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the appellant and respondent No. 1 in person. None present for respondent No. 2/pat Sanstha in Appeal No. 2086/2006. We also heard Mr. R. R. Waigankar, Advocate for Revision Petitioner and respondent No. 1 in person and Mr. Ulhas Naik, Advocate for respondent No. 2-Chairman of Shri Akkamhadevi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha in Revision Petition No. 95/2005. Respondent No. 1 in Appeal and Revision Petition had filed two consumer complaints bearing Nos. 261/1997 and 395/1998 before the Forum below. The District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur allowed the complaints and passed an award by order dated 19. 3. 1998. At this juncture, we would like to mention that the Administrator was appointed between 23. 9. 1997 and 20. 6. 1998. The Past Board of Directors, Present Board of Directors and the Chairman, who had held office for short period, were seriously affected because of different orders passed by Members and the President at different point of time. The President by the order dated 4. 4. 2003 exonerated the Directors and proceeded against the Credit Society. The President issued non-bailable warrant against Mr. Maruti Ramu Bhagoji, the Ex-Chairman of the Credit Society. It is material to note that Mr. Maruti Ramu Bhagoji adorned the chair as a Chairman between 20. 6. 1998 and 15. 12. 1998. The award was passed on 19. 3. 1998. After passing of the award Mr. Maruti Ramu Bhagoji was in the shoes of Chairmam of the Credit Society hardly for period of six months. The President thought it fit to issue non-bailable warrant against Ex-Chairman Mr. Maruti Ramu Bhagoji for the reasons best known to him. The Lady Member passed order on 9. 3. 2005 in Execution Petitions bearing Nos. 60/1998 and 82/1999 and came to the conclusion that all the previous Boards of Directors were jointly and severally liable including Chairman to pay sum of Rs. 98,055 to the complainant. The other Member by order dated 9. 5. 2005 passed altogether different order and concluded that the present Chairman in office and all the Directors in office are jointly and severally liable to refund the deposit amount with interest to the complainant. Because of different orders passed by different Members, larger number of persons are adversely affected, which ultimately gave rise to present appeal and revision petition. The other Member by order dated 9. 5. 2005 exonerated the previous Body and Ex-Chairman Maruti Ramu Bhagoji. These conflicting orders are passed arbitrarily and without application of mind. Because of such type of orders that too at different point of time, the Consumer Fora has become a laughing stock. The Members of the Consumer Fora failed to understand relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Members in the office including the President failed to take note of proviso to Sub-section (2-A) of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The proviso reads as under: "provided that where the proceding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum. "

The President passed the order without sensing the opinion of other members. If he would have taken into consideration the opinion of other Member, it was easy for him to refer the matter to the third Member in case of difference of opinion. He passed the order singly and also issued non-bailable warrant singly. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 mandates that every proceeding shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one Member thereof sitting together. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 14 further mandates that every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceeding. The record does not show as to whether the proceeding was conducted by the President and Member thereof sitting together. It is transpired from the order passed by the Lady Member dated 9. 3. 2005 that the President had already exonerated all the Directors before Lady Member joined the District Consumer Forum. The Lady Member passed the order on 9. 3. 2005. The third Member passed order on 9. 5. 2005. If there is difference of opinion, the matter should have been referred to third member and the third member ought to have expressed his concurrence to any of the orders passed by the President and the Lady Member. The third Member has passed altogether different order, which is unknown to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are constrained to observe that the third Member failed to understand the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If there is difference of opinion between the President and one Member, the third Member has to concur by separate order with the view expressed by the President or differing Member. He is not supposed to pass altogether different order than the orders passed by the President and the Lady Member. Because of passing of different orders at different point of time affecting previous Directors, present Directors and the Ex-Chairman has caused great confusion and made these different orders unenforceable.

IT is also argued by the learned Advocates Mr. Patwardhan and Mr. Waigankar that substantial amount was already paid to the complainant. They vehemently argued before us that the complainant renewed deposit receipts and on the basis of old receipts filed consumer complaints and obtained awards by misrepresentation. They further submitted that there is every possibility of filing of fresh complaint by the complainant on the basis of renewed deposit receipts. These issues cannot be gone into in Appeal and in the Revision Petition. We are of the view that these issues can be dealt with by the Forum below while passing appropriate orders in the Execution Applications after hearing both the parties. In the result, we pass the following order: ORDER 1. Appeal No. 2086/2006 is allowed. The orders passed in Execution Proceeding dated 4. 4. 2003, 9. 3. 2005, 9. 5. 2005 and 8. 9. 2006 by District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur are hereby quashed and set aside. 2. Revision Petition No. 95/2005 is allowed. The orders passed in Execution Proceeding dated 10. 2. 2003, 25. 6. 2003, 9. 3. 2005 and 9. 5. 2005 by District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur are hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Matters are transmitted back to the District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur for fresh consideration. 4. Liberty is granted to all the parties to agitate their respective factual and legal points before the Forum below. 5. No order as to costs. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Ordered accordingly.