Case nº Revision Petition No. 1899 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 03/02/2015 in Appeal No. 286/2013 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 29, 2016 (case 1. Aparna Balaso Pawar-Madhe and Ors. 2. Dhairyashil Balaso Pawar-Madhe 3. Yuvaraj Ramrav Pimpale 4. Dhanashri Ramrav Pimpale 5. Shrutika Shrirang Pawar-Madhe Vs 1. Sunil Anandrao Patil and Anr. 2. Shri Sonyamaruti Nagri Sahakari)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Brijender S. Dhull, Advocate and For Respondents: Nemo
PresidentMr. Ajit Bharihoke,Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member
DefenseConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A
Resolution DateNovember 29, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member

  1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Maharashtra dated 03-02-2015 in First Appeal No.A/13/286 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred against the order passed by the District Forum, Kolhapur and dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.

  2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioners-complainants filed a consumer complaint against the respondents in District Forum, Kolhapur alleging that they had respectively deposited certain amounts as fixed deposits with the respondent-opposite party No.1-cooperative society of which the respondent No.2 is the chairperson. According to the complainants when they approached the respondent-society for payment against their fixed deposits the opposite parties declined to do so. Claiming this to be deficiency in service petitioners filed the consumer complaint.

  3. The opposite parties despite service of notice of the consumer complaint and the opportunities given to file their response to the complaint, failed to do so. The opposite parties, however, moved an application before the consumer forum on 16-03-2003 seeking dismissal of the consumer complaint on the plea that previously Consumer Complaint No.58 of 2009 filed by the complainants was dismissed.

  4. The District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-opposite party No.1 as under:

    1. Complaint application is partly allowed.

    2. The opponent No.1, Shri Sonyamaruti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur is directed to pay the Maturity amounts payable of Deposit Receipts as mentioned in the following particulars with interest rate as determined and further interest @6% from the due date till entire amount is realized within 30 days from the receipt of this Order. The amounts invested in the form of deposit receipt, its details are as under:

    (1) Particulars of Amount invested in favour of Aparna Balaso Pawar-Madhe as follows-

    Sr. No.

    Type of Deposit

    Amount

    A/c No.

    Rate of Interest

    Due amount till date

    1.

    Double

    11000

    1590

    18

    44000

    2.

    Double

    15000

    1653

    18

    60000

    3.

    Double

    1501

    1745

    18

    6000

    4.

    Fixed

    20000

    1850

    10

    55000

    5.

    Attractive

    22100

    771

    100000

    6.

    Attractive

    16575

    772

     

    75000

    7.

    Attractive

    11000

    317

     

    100000

    8.

    Attractive

    22100 

    1119

     

    100000

    9.

    Attractive

    22718

    40

     

    32259

    (2) Particulars of Amount invested in favour of Dhairyasheel Balaso Pawar-Medhe as follows --

    Sr. No.

    Type of Deposit

    Amount

    A/c No.

    Rate of Interest

    Due amount till date

    1.

    Double

    11000

    1499

    18

    44000

    2.

    Double

    15000

    1654

    18

    60000

    3.

    Fixed

    20000

    1849

    10

    55000

    4.

    Attractive

    22100

    665

     

    100000

    5.

    Attractive

    22718

    41

     

    322...

To continue reading

Request your trial