BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
E.A NO. 1 OF 2016
IN
CC NO.34 OF 2011
Between :
- K.Vijaya Kumar,
R/o. H.No.12-2-39/4,
Sriramnagar Colony, Mehdipatnam,
Hyderabad -28.
- Smt. K.Rajani
W/o. K.Vijaya Kumar,
R/o. H.No.12-2-39/4,
Sriramnagar Colony, Mehdipatnam,
Hyderabad -28. …Petitioners/ Complainants
AND :
Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Credit Society,
Rep. by the Liquidator, D.T.O., Koti,
Hyderabad. …Respondent / Opposite Party
Counsel for the Petitioners : K.Vijaya Kumar (PIP)
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Koppisetty Veerabhadra Rao &
N.Narasimha Murthy
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Friday, the Twenty First day of October
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
The petitioner no.1 is the husband and petitioner no.2 is his wife. They had filed C.C.No.34/2011 on the file of this Commission against the respondent herein seeking refund of the amounts covered by their FDR’s. In the said case the respondent remained exparte.
2. Basing on the material evidence on record and after hearing the petitioners , this Commission by the order dated 29.08.2011 directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.55,35,000/-, covered by the FDR’s with interest @ 13% p.a., from the date of the complaint viz., 31.12.2010 till the date of realization with costs of Rs.10,000/-, within 4 weeks.
3. As the respondent failed to comply with the above stated order, the petitioners have come up with the present petition under section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to issue a certificate to the District Collector, Hyderabad for realization of the accrued amount of Rs.81,49,000/- as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.
4. The petitioner no.1 in his affidavit annexed to the present petition has stated that, initially he and his wife petitioner no.2 had filed W.P.No.38164/2014 for the similar relief. But the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the same by directing them to approach this Commission for execution of the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by this Commission in C.C.No.34/2011.
5. The respondent has filed counter and resisted the petition on the grounds, interalia, that the respondent Society went in liquidation under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and consequently a liquidator was appointed and he took over charge from the earlier Committee of the Society. During the course of enquiry in the affairs of the Society, it was found that the ex-managing committee was responsible for Rs.52,45,85,868/- and the inquiry officer recommended for recovery of the same. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar concerned has passed a surcharge order against one Sri Akula Krishna Murthy, Ex-Secretary, of the Society for recovery of the said amount. Then, he filed CTA.No.94/2012 before the Coop. Tribunal, Hyderabad and during it’s pendency, the Liquidator has initiated execution proceedings and recovered an amount of Rs.1,05,25,000/- from the Ex-Secretary. Even the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad has filed C.C.No.5/2011 before the Special Court at Nampally, Hyderabad against the Ex- managing committee of the Society under the provisions of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act and IPC on the complaints of some other depositors for mis-appreciation of the Society funds and the same is pending adjudication. There were also cases pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the Liquidator could not secure deposit details of the petitioners herein and make payments. Only after receipt of all the claims within prescribed period and once the assets and liabilities of the society are clear, the Liquidator can make payments to them on a pro rata basis subject to availability of funds. Some other depositors have filed Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court in which interim stay were granted against making of payments of the deposited amounts of which the petitioners herein are well aware. Even, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed orders in F.A.No.211/2010 and F.ANo.241/2010 on 09.11.2011 directing the complainants therein to approach the Special Court or the Liquidator for recovery of the amounts due in accordance with Law. The Liquidator has also initiated action to realize the assets of the society but the same was halted due to pendency of criminal cases against the then Secretary and other Managing Committee Members of the respondent Society. Though, the Liquidator is ready and willing to settle all the claims of the depositors, he is unable to do so for the reason of pendency of several cases before various courts. Even otherwise present petition is not maintainable inview of Section 121 (2) of The A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, as per which no action lies against any member or the Liquidator of the Society except by leave of the Registrar during the pendency of Liquidation proceedings. For all these reasons the respondent has prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Heard Both the learned counsel for the parties to this petition.
7. Now the point for consideration is that:-
Whether the petition is maintainable, if so, to what relief?
8. Point:- The entitlement of the petitioners for the accrued amount of Rs.81,49,000/- against the respondent society by virtue of the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by this Commission in C.C.No.34/2011 is not in dispute. The Liquidator of the respondent Society in the counter has also expressed his readiness and willingness to settle their claim along with other similar and identical claimants but only after disposal of all the cases which are pending before various courts. According to him, he has already taken over charge of the affairs of the respondent society and invited all the claims from nearly 2500 depositors and that so far the actual quantum of assets and liabilities of the society are not clear and that once the same became clear, he will be in a position to make payments of the dues to them on pro rata basis subject to availability of funds, as per the directions of the Registrar of Societies. No doubt, he has referred to some of the writ petitions pending before the Hon’ble High Court by stating that interim stay were granted therein so, also the orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in two appeals. But, he did not file copies of the same for perusal. Even otherwise, the petitioners herein are not parties to the said proceedings and as such, in our opinion, the directions therein are not applicable to them.
9. It is further to be noted that, the present petition cannot be termed as a fresh legal proceeding to be hit by the provision under Section 121 (2) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 but it is only continuation of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners earlier in C.C.No.34/2011 on the file of this Commission.
For these reasons, it cannot be said that the petition is not maintainable.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case no prejudice will be caused to the respondent society if a certificate is issued to the District Collector, Hyderabad for the due amount under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as prayed for by the petitioners so as to enable them to proceed further under the Revenue Recovery Act for realization of the same, of course, subject to availability funds and on pro rata basis with other depositors under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. In this view of the matter, we hold that the present petition is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for. The Liquidator of the respondent society is liable to make payments to the petitioners herein from the assets of the society on a pro rata basis along with other claimants on finalization of the related legal proceedings.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. Issue certificate to the District Collector, Hyderabad accordingly.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 21.10.2016
