First Appeal Nos. 373, 374, 375 and 376 of 2014. Case: Kalika Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Yogiraj Warle and Ors.. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal Nos. 373, 374, 375 and 376 of 2014
JudgesK.B. Gawali, Presiding Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3
CitationI (2015) CPJ 122 (Maha.)
Judgement DateJanuary 14, 2015
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.B. Gawali, Presiding Member

  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:

    It was submitted by these complainants that after the date of maturity they had demanded the amount of maturity from the opponent society and the opponent Manager. However, they avoided to pay the amount and thereby committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. That, they have also given legal notice to the opponent society but there was no response from it including Manager of the society and therefore they filed separate complaints as mentioned above before the Dist. Consumer Forum seeking directions to pay them their respective maturity amount and also compensation towards mental harassment.

  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. The Dist. Consumer Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties allowed these complaints and directed the appellants/opponents and also the opponent Manager to pay to the complainants their respective maturity amounts of their term deposits along with interest and also to pay compensation towards mental...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT