1. A pensioner-Mr. Murlidhar Rajdhar Patil, aged 67 years, had deposited his hard earned earnings of Rs. 50,000 for one year @ 12% per annum with Siddhi Vyankatesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon, (for short the "Society") under the special scheme called ''Shri Siddhi Vyankatesh Deposit Yojana'' on 4th November, 2005, which was to mature on 4th December, 2006. The Society told the complainant to invest the advance interest amount of Rs. 6,000 by paying Rs. 1,000 more i.e. Rs. 7,000. A receipt was issued on 4th November, 2005 and interest rate at 11% per annum. The said fixed deposit was to mature on 4th December, 2006, but the amount was not refunded. The District Forum passed the following order:
(a) The complaint application of the complainant is partly allowed.
(b) The respondent Nos. 1 to 17 are jointly and severally directed to issue duplicate fixed deposit receipt bearing No. 2143 of Rs. 50,000 and fixed deposit receipt bearing No. 002144 for Rs. 7,000 both dated 4th November, 2005 and as the period of duplicate receipts had expired and as the complainant has demanded amount thereunder as per rule after exiry of period of fixed deposits, the amount be paid to the complainant.
(c) The respondent Nos. 1 to 17 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant amount of FD No. 002143 after maturity i.e. Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the fixed deposit amount after expiry of period, from 4.11.2006 till the date of order.
So also, pay to the complainant amount under FD Receipt No. 002144 after maturity amount of Rs. 7834 (Rupees seven thousand eight hunderd thirty four) with interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the fixed deposit amount, after expiry of period of deposit, from 4.12.2006 till the date of order.
2. The District Forum also ordered Rs. 2,000 towards compensation and Rs. 1,000 towards cost.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the amount as alleged by the complainant was invested in FD and that FD had matured and repayment has not been done are not in dispute. Further, the records also show that the original receipts have been lost and the Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies had also directed to issue duplicate receipts of FDR and pay the maturity amount. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
4. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner have filed this revision petition before us.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Directors are not personally responsible for any default of repayment of the maturity amount by the Society. Further, only the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank are responsible for the transaction. But he did not dispute the fact that the amount was deposited by the complainant and non-payment of the maturity amount with interest.
6. Petitioners are the Directors of the Co-operative Society, which is governed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act and which is controlled by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. Registrar, Cooperative Societies has even got the power to supersede a Cooperative Society, if there is misap-propriation or misapplication of funds or mis-managements of the affairs of the Society by the Chairman and Directors of the Society. In this case, they did not obey the directions of the Office of the Registrar of the Cooperative Society to issue duplicate FDR receipt and also refund the maturity amount with impunity. The petitioners have not produced any documents before us that the Cooperative Society is Registered, as a Bank under the Banking Regulation Act, nor this has been pleaded before the State Commission in the memo of appeal or in the Revision Petition filed before us. Learned Counsel submitted that Directors are non-functional and they have no say in the day-to-day affairs of the Society, which we disbelieve this contention.
7. We are also aware that a large number of Cooperative Societies have been superseded because of the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by the Chairman and the Directors of the Society. They even run the Society as if it is their personal freedom. We would like to remove the Corporate/Cooperative veil and hold that Directors are responsible for the deficiency in service by the Society.
8. Accordingly, we do not see any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Fora below calling for interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
R.P. dismissed.
