1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 21.06.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 217/2016. In this appeal, the appeal of the Respondent/ Complainant was allowed, thereby setting aside the Order dated 13.01.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad (“District Forum”) in CC No. 378 of 2010 wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent was allowed in part.

2.      There was a delay of 366 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application of Condonation of delay bearing no. IA/18801/2018, the delay was condoned.

3.      For the convenience, the parties in this Revision Petition are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Smt. Pushpavathi is referred to as the Complainant. The Telegraph Traffic Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through The District Co-operative Officer is referred to as the OP-1, The Special Officer In-charge is referred to as the OP-2 and The Personal In-Charge/Chairman is referred to as the OP-3 respectively in this matter.

4.      In brief, the husband of the Complainant, Late Mr. M. Janaki Ramaiah, deposited a total of eight Fixed Deposits (FDs) amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- with The Telegraph Traffic Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Hyderabad ("OP Society") during his lifetime as a retired Govt teacher. Of this, Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited in his name and Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited in the Complainant's name on various dates. The OP Society had agreed to pay interest at rates of 12%, 13%, and 14% respectively. However, it was alleged that upon maturity, the OP Society failed to fulfil its obligation of paying both the interest and principal amounts to the Complainant. The Complainant further averred that the number of similar depositors made complaints to the OP Society for payments. Feeling aggrieved by non-compliance, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 378 of 2010 before the District Forum seeking refund of deposit of Rs.4,50,000/-, along with interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental strain and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

5.      In reply, the OP Society denied all allegations and contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part since the Complainant did not receive any service directly from them. They asserted that the disputes between the parties are of a civil nature, and there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the Complainant and the OP Society. The complaint should be dismissed as it is not maintainable under the law. The Complainant deposited the amount without verifying the by-laws or annual audit reports, making it a private transaction between the Complainant and the former Secretary, ‘Krishna Murthy’. They emphasized that they were not aware of these deposits and thus cannot be held accountable for any alleged deficiency in service. The OP Society also asserted that the Complainant, being a non-member of the society, cannot claim deficiency of service against them. They argued that the provisions of the Co-Operative Societies Act are applicable for resolving disputes between the society and its members, and therefore the complaint should be dealt with accordingly. They admitted that some depositors had filed a complaint against the ex-secretary, resulting in the registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against him before the Metropolitan Session Judge. Further, following the closure of the Society, the District Cooperative Officer appointed an inquiry officer to investigate its affairs under Section 51 of the AP Cooperative Societies Act. The Management Committee of the Society was suspended due to the ex-secretary's misappropriation of funds, and a Person in-charge (PIC)/ Chairman was appointed under Section 32(7) of the APCS Act, 1964, to oversee the Society's affairs and prepare lists of depositors and borrowers. The inquiry conducted by the PIC Chairman revealed that the Society was not financially viable, with liabilities outweighing assets. It was also found that the transactions between the Complainant and the ex-secretary, who misappropriated Society funds without recording them in the books, were not reflected in the Society's accounts. Therefore, the Society argued that it cannot be held liable for refunding any such amount due to these circumstances.

6.      The OP Society further argued that the ex-Secretary, Mr. Krishna Murthy, deceived the Complainant and others. The Complainant cannot shift the responsibility onto the Society for repayment of the amount. Also, the fixed deposit receipts are without signatures of other office bearers of the society, indicating that the Complainant did not deposit the amount in accordance with the society's byelaws. Thus, the Complainant cannot seek protection under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Commissioner for Co-operation, along with the Registrar of Co-operative Society, directed the Person in-charge/Chairman not to disburse any amount to any members or non-members of the society. They highlighted that some non-members of the society had filed a Writ Petition seeking direction from the High Court to appoint a liquidator for liquidation of the society and disbursement of dues to the members. The present complaint seeking repayment is not valid, and thus she is not entitled to any relief. The OP Society contended that in any case the Person in-charge/Chairman of the society is not personally liable for the repayment of the amount deposited.

7.      The learned District Forum in its Order dated 13.01.2011 accepted/ allowed the complaint in part and granted the following relief to the Complainant:

“In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as follows.

1.The person in-charge of the Society; (OP) is not personally liable to pay the amount to the complainant and as we hold that the Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Society is liable for refund of the deposit amount to the Complainant.

2.The opposite party (Society) No.3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as admitted by it to the Complainant. However, the interest payable on the principal amount and compensation is subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition filed by the non-members seeking liquidation of the society.

3.The opposite party (Society) is liable to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant.

4.The case against OP's. 1 & 2 are dismissed.”

8.      Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, it was the Complainant/ Respondent who filed an Appeal No. 217/2016 before the State Commission with respect to its execution. The State Commission vide Order dated 21.06.2017 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, with the following findings: -

“1. The Appellant herein is the complainant, and the Respondent is one of the Opposite Parties in C.C.No.378/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum [for brevity, ‘the District Forum’] Hyderabad.  She had filed it under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties therein, to refund a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to her with interest along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-on the premise that they failed to repay the FDRs of Rs.4,50,000/- which was deposited by her husband, late Janaki Ramaiah with the Telegraph Traffic Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad [for short, ‘the society’] during his lifetime being a retired govt. teacher.  It is to be noted that out of the said total amount, the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited on his name and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited on the name of the complainant on various dates.  The opposite parties in the case resisted the claim on various grounds.  However, the District Forum by the order dated 13.01.2011 allowed the complaint in part in the following terms:

i.  The person in-charge of the Society [Opposite Party] is not personally liable to pay amount to the complainant and as we hold that the Telegraph Traffic Employees Cooperative Society is liable for refund of the deposit amount to the complainant.   

ii. The Opposite Party [Society] No.3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as admitted by it to the complainant.  However, the interest payable on the principle amount and compensation is subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the non-members seeking liquidation of the Society.

iii. The Opposite Party [Society] is liable to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

Iv. The case against Opposite parties 1 & 2 is dismissed.

2.    To execute the said order the complainant had filed an Execution Application but the same was dismissed by the District Forum directing the complainant to approach the Official Liquidator for getting settled the amount payable to her on pro-rata basis.

3.  Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred an appeal   in FA.No.283/2012 against all the opposite parties.  After hearing the parties, this Commission by the order dated 13.05.2013 allowed the same by setting aside the impugned order and remitted back the matter to the District Forum for denovo enquiry and disposal in accordance with law.  In the said order this Commission made an observation as under :

9. In view of the settled position of law, the District Forum ought not to have modified its order which had become final.  In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order dated 13.01.2011 would have been implemented. 

4. No challenge was made to this order by the Opposite Parties and that accordingly the same has become final and conclusive. Therefore, the order dated 13.01.2011 in C.C.No. 378/ 2010 passed by the District Forum has to be now implemented. 

5.  For the said purpose the complainant has filed E.A.no.34/2011 against the respondent herein.  After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum has disposed of the Execution Application by the order dated 10.06.2016 directing the Official Liquidator to register the complainant’s claim and make payments to her on pro-rata basis.  This order is now under challenge by the Complainant under section 27-A of the Act, 1986 on the sole ground that the same is in contravention to the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the District Forum in C.C.no.378/2010 and that as such the same is liable to be set aside. 

7. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal and that as such liable to be set aside?    

8. Point :- At the outset, it is to be noted that the basic principle of law is that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. Keeping in mind this legal proposition, it is to be noted that the District Forum by it’s order dated 13.01.2011 in C.C.no.378/ 2010 has directed the Society to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- excluding the amount of interest and compensation which is a matter sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition. This order was also confirmed by this Commission in F.A.no.283/2012. When this being the fact, we are unable to understand as to how the District Forum could take a different view in the impugned order directing the Respondent herein to decide the claim of the Complainant on pro-rata basis contrary to it’s earlier order dated 13.01.2011. It is pertinent to note that at the time of passing of the order in C.C.no.378/2010 the Official Liquidator i.e., the Respondent herein was not appointed.  Even assuming that this subsequent development in appointment of the Official Liquidator to manage liquidation affairs of the Society plays an important role in the issue, the Society ought to have taken appropriate steps before the competent authority to get modified / varied the above said order dated 13.01.2011 passed in C.C.no.378/2010.  This was not done. Thus, the fact remains that the said order has attained finality and as such must be implemented in letter and spirit.  Even the learned counsel for the Respondent herein has referred to the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Appeal no.1431 of 2014 wherein, while dismissing the Writ Petition No.18973/2010, it was observed that the writ petitioners were at liberty to approach the District Forum for execution of the orders passed by it.  For the said purpose only the complainant has approached the Forum but strangely got the order contrary to the decree / order passed already by itself only, in C.C.no.378/2010, which is now in issue. 

9.  The learned counsel for the Respondent, in para no.4 of the written arguments has referred to an order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in F.A.no.211/2010 and F.A.no.241/2010 to state that the Complainant has to approach the Special Court for the purpose of recovery of the amount or may seek recovery from the Liquidator as per the due procedure for disbursement under the relevant law.  But, he did not furnish complete text of the said orders for our perusal.  Therefore, his assertion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal cannot be countenanced. 

10.    In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is erroneous both on facts and in the eye of law and that as such liable to be set aside by allowing the present Appeal. 

11.    The point is answered accordingly.

12.    In the result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent Society to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

9.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / OP Society has now filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 2829 of 2018.

10.    The Petitioner/OP Society has raised several grounds in the instant revision petition:

(a) The State Commission erred by allowing the First Appeal of the Respondent without considering the pleadings of the Petitioner and the arguments presented before the District forum. The Society is not viable to continue due to misappropriation of depositors' funds by the then Managing Committee, leading to its liquidation. They referred to orders passed in E.A.No.34 of 2011 in C.C.No.378 of 2010 dated 22.02.2012, 10.06.2016, and others, where it was held that the society was under liquidation, and the Official Liquidator was directed to make payments on a pro-rata basis. The Petitioner made payments on a pro-rata basis of 4.4% as per section 66 of the A.P. S. Act, 1964.

(b) The State Commission allegedly failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent's husband is not a BSNL employee but a retired school teacher and a non-member of the society. Therefore, the Petitioner argues that they do not fall under the ambit of the said act, and the Society is not liable to pay any amount to the Respondent.

c) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondent should pursue an alternative course of action against the then Managing Committee, especially against the then Secretary of the Society. The State Commission erred in passing the impugned order without considering the absence of the Society and directing the Society to make payment, which they claim is arbitrary and illegal. The Official Liquidator is not personally liable to pay any amount to the Respondent.

d) The State Commission failed to consider that the Petitioner/ Official Liquidator offered to pay the Respondent on a pro-rata basis of 4.4%, which the Respondent declined to receive. The Petitioner claims to have brought this to the attention of the State Commission, but it allegedly took a contrary view based on whims, leading to an order that should be set aside.

11.    The learned Counsel for Petitioner Society reiterated the grounds of the petition and the written version filed before the District Forum. He emphasized that the Society had funds amounting to Rs.2,30,00,000/- available. Upon seeking legal advice and consulting with superiors of the department, the liquidator disbursed the available amount to all depositors on a pro-rata basis at a rate of 4.4%. A paper publication was issued in April 2017, and nearly 1600 out of 2450 depositors availed themselves of this opportunity. A copy of the payments made to the members/ claimants on a pro-rata basis was filed. He further argued that the liquidator must first ascertain the liability of the Society and then the executive committee members. The liquidator is currently in the process of giving notice under Rule 51(B) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, inviting claims from depositors against the Society. The liquidator will make payments of dues on a pro-rata basis subject to the availability of funds and/or as per the direction and instruction of the Registrar, and in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act Rules of 1964. He further contended that the Respondent filed an Execution Application (EA/34/2011 in CC/378/2010) before the District Forum. On 10.06.2016, the learned District Forum directed the official liquidator to register the Respondent’s claim and make the payment on a pro-rata basis. The official liquidator thereafter offered the Respondent the opportunity to collect her amount of Rs.4,50,000 on a pro-rata basis at 4.4%, along with other members/non-members/claimants, upon finalization of the legal processing. However, the Respondent refused to accept the amount on a pro-rata basis and instead filed a case against the official Liquidator to demand full payment along with interest. Therefore, the liquidator cannot be held personally liable for payment of any liabilities of society.

12.    During the arguments on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, it was asserted by the Counsel that the Execution Application EA/34//2011 was filed at District Forum-II Hyderabad to realize the said amounts, but T.T.E.C.C.S Limited did not comply with the order, nor did they adhere to the order passed by the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 21.06.2017 in FA/217/2016. This order directed T.T.E.C.C.S Limited, Hyderabad to pay Rs.4,50,000/- along with costs of Rs.2000/-. Despite bringing this to the notice of T.T.E.C.C.S Limited, their actions proved futile, and they instead filed a revision petition 2829/2018 before this Commission to stay the order of the State Commission dated 21.06.2017, along with IA. No. 18802/2018 seeking condonation of delay after the orders passed in EA/34/2011 and FA/217/2016. Thus, it is argued that the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was defeated by this undue delay, denying the injured Consumer natural justice and causing more mental agony. Basic rights were denied by stalling the implementation of the orders repeatedly at District Forum-III Hyderabad and the National Commission too, due to the misappropriation of funds by T.T.E.C.C.S Limited. Instead of punishing those people under CrPC/IPC, T.T.E.C.C.S Limited let loose the culprits and, denied the FDs to be refunded to FD Holders, which is against the C.P. Act 1986 and Natural Justice. They sought early disposal along with FD amounts and agreed interest, FDs, and penal interests of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as costs and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony for over 14 years.

13.    Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora below and argument advanced by both the parties.

14.    The main issue is whether the OPs are liable to compensate the Complainant as per the order of the learned District Forum dated 13.01.2011, as modified by the learned State Commission vide order dated 21.06.2017. The Complainant asserted that despite orders of both the fora, the OPs failed to comply, causing undue delay and mental agony to the Complainant.

15.    It is a matter of record that Complainant filed CC No.378/2010 before the learned District Forum seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest and compensation as they failed to repay the FDRs of Rs.4,50,000/- invested by her husband. While the OPs resisted the claim on various grounds, the learned District Forum vide order dated 13.01.2011 allowed the complaint in part and directed the OP Society to pay Rs.4,50,000/- and held that the interest payable on the principal amount and compensation is subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the non-members seeking liquidation of the Society. The District Forum has also directed the OP Society to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

16.    In the absence of any challenge of this order, the same has become final and thus the order of the learned District Forum in CC No. 378/2010 dated 13.01.2011 became final. To execute the said order, she filed an Execution Application. The same was, however, dismissed by the District Forum directing the Complainant to approach the Official Liquidator subsequently appointed for settling the amount payable to her on pro-rata basis. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred an appeal vide FA.No.283/2012 and vide order dated 13.05.2013, the learned State Commission allowed the same, set aside the order and remitted back the matter to the learned District Forum for de-novo enquiry and disposal of the Execution Proceedings.  Thereafter, the Complainant filed EA No. 34/2011 and the District Forum vide order dated 10.06.2016 disposed of the said Execution Application directing the Official Liquidator to register the Complainant’s claim and make payments to her on pro-rata basis. 

17.    This order of the District Forum disposing of the EA was challenged by her on the ground that it is in contravention to the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the same District Forum in CC No. 378/ 2010 and thus it is liable to be set aside. The State Commission held that the District Forum could not have taken a different view in the impugned order directing for determination of the claim of the Complainant on pro-rata basis, contrary to its earlier order vide order dated 13.01.2011. 

18.    It is uncontested position that, at the time of passing of the order in CC No. 378/2010, the Official Liquidator was not even appointed.  Even if he was appointed subsequently, it was the duty of the Society to have taken appropriate steps before the competent authority to either implement or get the order within the time as directed, or appeal against and get the learned District Forum order modified. In the absence of any such legal recourse, the said order of the District Forum attained finality and needs to be implemented and cannot be subject to scrutiny at this stage. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated 21.11.2014 the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1431 of 2014 dismissed the Writ Petition No.18973/2010, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Forum for Execution of the orders passed by it. Accordingly, the learned State Commission had set aside the said order of the District Forum, allowed the Appeal vide order dated 21.06.2017 and directed the OP Society to pay to the Complainant Rs.4,50,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19.    Admittedly, as on 13.01.2011 when the order was passed by the learned District Forum, the Official Liquidator was not even appointed. This order became final in the absence of any appeal by the OPs. The detailed and well reasoned Order of the learned State Commission dated 21.06.2017 does not warrant any interference. It is the unfettered liability of the Society to comply with the judicial order, which has become final.

20.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

21.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

22.    All Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.