IMPORTANT POINT
Frivolous litigation must be saddled with costs.

R.C. Chavan, President—This appeal by a cooperative society is directed against anORDER dated 20.6.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2012 and directing the Appellant Society to pay to the Respondent/original Complainant an amount of Rs.40,000 together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from 7.9.2003 besides costs quantified at Rs.1,000.

2. Respondent/Complainant stated in the complaint that she had deposited with Samata Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, an amount of Rs.10,000 on 7.5.1999 and on 6.1.2009 she deposited a further sum of Rs.10,000 in the name of minor—Rutika. These amounts were to be repaid by the Society after a period of 57 months together with equal sum viz. Society was to pay double the amounts. This Society which had accepted the deposit was ultimately taken over by the Appellant Society. The Respondent/Complainant was a member of earlier society and she is also a member of the Appellant Society. The Respondent/Complainant also claimed to have deposited an amount of Rs.1,000 on 6.2.2001. The complaint does not recite anything about deposit of an amount of Rs.28,000 by the Respondent/Complainant, a receipt whereof was sought to be shown to us by the Learned Advocate for the Respondent. In the complaint as filed, the Respondent/Complainant has admitted having received from the Appellant Society an amount of Rs.36,000. The Respondent/Complainant claimed that total amount due from the Appellant Society was of Rs.93,110 and, therefore, claimed refund of balance amount together with interest.

3. In pursuance of notice issued by the District Forum, the Appellant Society did appear before the District Forum but did not file its written version and, therefore, the District Forum decided the complaint ex-parte andORDERed the Appellant Society to pay to the Respondent/original Complainant an amount of Rs.40,000 together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from 7.9.2003 besides costs quantified at Rs.1,000. Aggrieved thereby the Appellant Society is before us.

4. We have heard Adv. Rahul Gandhi on behalf of the Appellant Society and Adv. Amit P. Chaukade on behalf of the Respondent. We have also perused the record.

5. Whatever the Learned Advocate for the Appellant Society now states before us ought to have been stated by the Appellant Society before the District Forum. The Respondent/Complainant had invested only a sum of Rs.21,000 and she has been repaid by the Appellant Society a sum of Rs.36,000 pursuant to a scheme of merger which had been approved by the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Thus, now there is no question of the Respondent/Complainant being entitled to receive any additional amount. The District Forum was not justified inORDERing the Appellant Society to pay to the Respondent/original Complainant an amount of Rs.40,000 together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from 7.9.2003. At the cost of repetition we may point out that the receipt which is tried to be shown to us today by the Learned Advocate for the Respondent is not reflected in the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant herself. Further, there is no question of repayment of fees of Rs.110 paid for purchasing the shares.

6. Therefore, the present appeal will have to be allowed. However, since the Appellant Society was required to file this appeal because of lapse on the part of the Appellant Society itself and since the Respondent/Complainant has been needlessly dragged to this Commission, since had the Appellant Society appeared before the District Forum this problem would have been settled at the level of the District Forum itself, therefore, while we allow this appeal we saddle the Appellant Society with costs quantified at Rs.2,000 to be paid to the Respondent. We hold accordingly and pass the followingORDER:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

ImpugnedORDER dated 20th June, 2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pu