Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2888
Appeals A fil p e p d e a o l n s : d 7 is 1 p .0 o 6 se .2 d0 2o4t, 117 2 . . 0 0 3 6 . . 2 2 0 0 2 2 6 4
BEFORE THE KARNATAXA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH.2, BELAGAVI
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SHANI(AR - WDICIAL MEMBER and HON'BLE SMT. SI'NITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWN)I - L/U)Y MEMBER
sc I 29 I CBz I Al Ls76 I 2024 TO A/ 1593 I 2024
BETWEEN
1. Smt.Vidya, W/o.Jaganath Shetti, Aged about 43 Years, Residing at No.Shri Jagadguru Renukacharya Mahila Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Somawar Peth, Gokak Dist, Belagavi..,. Appellant (Appellant ls common in Appeel Nos.7576/2O24 to 1593/2024)
(Rep. bg Srl.AniI Shekaal(S, Adoocate for appellant in all the appeals)
-Versus-
1. Appeal No.l576l2O24
1. Smt.Rathnwwa, W/o Mahadev Kattimani, Aged about 71 Years, R/o. 887, Desai Galli, Near Nera Thaloba Katti, Chinchali, Taluk: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
2. AppealNo.L577l2O24
1. Sunitha Mahadev Kattimani, Father name not known, Aged about 44 Years, R/o. H.N. 887, Desai Galli, Near NeraThaloba Katti, I Chinchali, Taluk: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.
3. Apoeal No.157al2024
1. Sri.Appanna, S/o Hanamanthappa Meti, Aged about 70 Years, Rl o.429 I al 2, Mokashi Gal1i, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
4. Appeal No.157912024
1. Smt.Sumitra, W/o Appanna Meti, Aged about 60 Years, Rlo. a29lal2, Mokashi Galli, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
5. Appeal No.158O/2O24
1. Smt.Bharati, D/o Appanna Meti, Aged about 39 Years, Rlo. a29lal2, Mokashi Galli, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
6. Appeal No.1581/2024
1. Smt.Shobha Mahadev Kattimani, Father name not know, Aged about 51 Years, R/o.H.No.887, Desai Galli, Near Nera Thaloba Katti, Chinchali, Tq:Raibag, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
7. Aooeal No.1582/2024
1. Smt.Shivaleela, W/o Rajendra Andani, Aged about 72Years, R/o.R.S.No. 182, Plot No.8, 3.d Cross, Vidyanagar, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
8. Appeal No.1583/2O24
1. Smt.Kashibai, W/o Venkanna Boodi, Aged about 70 Years, R/o.5tt Cross, Vivekananda Nagar, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
9. Appeal No.1584/2024
1. Sri.Vivekanand, S/o Prappa Alatagi, Aged about 77 Years, R/o.Karadiguddi, Behind Mayur School, H.No.202A, Plot No.7, Channammma Nagar, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
10. Appeal No. 1585/2O24
1. Smt.Drakshayani, W/ o Mallikarjun Yandigeri, Aged about 54 Years, R/o.H.No. 1203, Banagar Galli, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
11. Appeal No.1586/2O24
1. Kum.Shreya, D/o Somanath Hiremath, Aged about 25 Years, R/o.Plot No.12, Krushi Nagar, Dharwad. Respondent
12. Appeal No. 1587/2O24
1. S D m /o t . A B p h p a a ra n t n i a, Meti, Aged about 39 Years,R I o.429 I al 2, Mokashi Galli,Gokak, Dist: Belagavi.
2. Smt.Sumithra, W/o. Appanna Meti, Aged about 60 Years, R/ o.429 / a/ 2, Mokashi Galli, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
13. Ao al No. 1588/2o24
1. D Ka /o v it M ha ah , adev Kattimani, Aged about 44 Years, R/o.H.N.887, Desai Galli, Near Nera Thaloba Katti, Chinchali, Taluk: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
14. Ao al No.1589/2024
1. Smt.Pushpa, W/o.Prabhakar Kabbur, Aged about 57 Years, R/o.LaO4 lB, Banagar Galli, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
15. A eal No.L59012024
1. Smt.Anita Mahadev Kattimani, Father name not known, Aged about 40 Years, R/o. 887, Desai Galli, Near Nera Thaloba Katti, Chinchali, Tq:Raibag, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
16. Aopeal No.1591/2024
1. Shri.Gurunath Ningappa Navi, Father name not known, Aged about 63 Years, R/ o.H. N.394, Arabhavi, Taluk, Gokak,Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
17. Appeal No.LS92 I 2o24
1. Smt.Madhumalati, D/o.Venkanna Boodi, Aged about 53 Years, R/o.St}t Cross, Vivekananda Nagar, Gokak, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
18. Appeal No.L593 I 2O24
1. Shri.Mahesh Mahadev Kattimani, Father name not known, Aged about 41 Years, R/o.H.N.887, Desai Galli, Near Nera Thaloba Katti, Chinchali, Tq: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi. Respondent
ORDER
The impugned order dated 16.05.2024 & 17.05.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi in Criminal Complaints Nos. 193 / 20 1 9, 384 I 20 19, 385 I 20 19, 438 I 2019, 47 5 I 20 19, 47612OL9, 52212Ot9, 757 120L9, 75812019, 759 12019, 76012Ot9, 78812019, 78912019, 8O2l2Ol9, 5412O2L, 591202L, 68l2O2l & 69l2O2l respectively is hereby confirmed.
Keep the original of this order in Appeal No.l576l2O24 and copies thereofin connected files.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same Send a copy of this order to both parties as well , The appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost.concerned District Consumer Commission.
(SUNITA.C.BAGEWADI)
LADY MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBERS
(Respondents )
COMMON ORDER BY HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI.LADY MEMBER
1. The Appellant/Accused No.5 being aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2024 & 17.O5.2O24 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi in Criminal Complaints Nos.193/2019, 38412019, 385/2019, 438120t9, 47512Ot9, 47612Or9, 52212OL9, 757 l2ot9, 758120t9, 75912019, 760l2ot9, 788120t9, 789 l2OL9, 80212019, s41202r, 5912021, 681202r & 6e l2o2t respectively has liled these appeals.
2. The Appellant/Accused Nos.S is the same in all these Appeals and the facts involved in these Appeals are one and the same. Hence, these Appeals are taken up together and are being disposed-off by a common order.
3. The brief facts of the complaints are that;The complainants have filed Consumer Complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi against the Opposite Parties for deficiency of service for non-refund of the matured F.D. Amounts to the complainants. After hearing, the District Commission allowed the complaints directing the Opposite Parties to pay the matured F.D. Amounts with interest along with cost of the litigation within 30 days from the date of orders. However, Opposite Parties have not complied the order passed by the District Commission. Hence, no option left to the complainants, filed Execution proceedings against Opposite parties under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The District Commission admitted the Execution petitions, took the cognizance under Section 27 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019, recorded Sworn Statements and summons were issued to the Opposite Parties/Accused. Some of the Accused appeared through their respective Counsels and released on Bail and the complaints against Accused No.l1 i.e., Smt.Padmavati.S.Harijan has been dismissed. The cases against the Accused Nos.8 & 10 i.e., Smt.shakuntala S.Halbhavi and Smt.Jayashree.J.Pattar, was split-up. After recording 313 statements of Accused and defence evidence of accused the District Commission had heard the arguments and passed the Conviction Order. Being aggrieved by the said order, these accused/Appellants preferred these Appeals.
4. Perused the Appeal Memo and certified copy of the Order passed by the District Commission we noticed that Appellants in Appeal Memo contended that when they came to know about the misappropriation of funds in the society, enquiry was made out through Police Department and same was admitted by the Secretary of the Society by name Sri.Channapararya @ Raju, S/o.Basayya Yogikollamath that he was made the misappropriation of the society fund and has undertaken that he is alone responsible for the same. Further contended that in similar cases in Appeal Nos.529/2019 to 539/2019 this Commission remanded the matters and directed that "if undertaken of the Secretary is there, then the Execution Court shall see the said amounts shall be recovered by the person who has undertaken'. Also, contended that in Appeal No.86 to 89 l2O2O this Commission has disposed the matters holding that '------- said portion to manage the affairs of the Society for a certain period would have no privity of contract with Consumers and the Managing Committee shall not be responsible in their individual capacity. Hence, these Appellants are also not liable to pay the amount which was deposited by the complainants/DHRs because they have made the deposits with the Society and not with the Directors". Further, these Appellants have resigned from their respective post of the Chairman, the Vice - Chairman & the Director seat and without considering this all, the District Commission has passed the Conviction Orders against these Appellants which is illegal and prays to set aside the order of the District Commission.
5. It is specifically stated in Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as under:
"Section 72: Penalty for Non-Compliance of Order: 72 (1) Whoever fails to comply with
