MANDAPAM FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs MUNIASAMY

-THE above appeal is filed challenging the order of the District Forum, Ramanathapuram, in COP No. 27/2003, directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the complainants/respondents, towards mental agony and further directing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant towards the cost.

THE respondents/complainants 1 to 3 have filed the complaint before the District Forum to the effect that they have availed loan for the purchase of fishing boat from the appellant/opposite party during 1995 and during 1997, the boat has met with an accident and sunk in the sea and necessary complaints were given to the local police station and as well to the appellant/society, which has advanced loan. According to the respondents, the then President of the society, with the mala fide intention, has not accepted the fact that the boat was sunk and took a stand that the complainant intended to cheat the society, with a view to avoid payment of the loan amount. The then President though gave a complaint before the local police station as against the respondent/complainant for offences under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, the police authorities have not proceeded with the complaint by referring the charge sheet. Under the said circumstances, the complainants have preferred the complaint for mental agony suffered by them on account of deficiency in service, seeking compensation of Rs. 8,76,000. The appellant/opposite party, before the District Forum resisted the said complaint by contending that the complainants have not acted in a bona fide manner and their object is to ensure that they need not pay the loan amount and the alleged accident viz. sinking of the boat is contrary to the fact. It is only at the instance of the society, diligent steps were taken to find out about the whereabouts of the boat, and thereafter it was seized. It is further contended that the society has given proper complaint to the police authorities and merely because the police has referred the charge sheet, will not absolve the liability of the complainants to act in a bono fide manner.

The District Forum by considering the materials available on record has passed an order holding that the then President of the society has not acted in a bona fide manner and due to the inaction on the part of the society to initiate steps and to bring into auction of the seized boat and to adjust the amount due towards the loan, the complainants were made to suffer hardship and mental agony and they were not in a position to carry on their business. The District Forum though accepted the version of the complainant, has rejected their claim of compensation viz. Rs. 87,6000. However the District Forum has passed an order directing the society/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony and compensation and a further sum of Rs. 1,000 towards cost, apart from ordering interest. The present appeal is filed by the opposite party challenging the said order of the District Forum.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that as per the contract entered into between the society and the complainants, there is no provision to seize the boat and bring into auction. However the seizure of the boat was made by the society under the said circumstances and as such it cannot be considered as an illegal action on the part of the society. It is further contended that complainants have not promptly repaid the loan and only a sum of Rs. 13,000 was repaid by them. Under the said circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. Per contra the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the order of the District Forum does not call for any interference inasmuch as the same was passed after considering the entire evidence on record. Even though it is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for appellant that as per the terms of the contract, there is no power to seize, a perusal of Ex. B1- Contract Agreement clearly proves the fact that the society is entitled to seize the boat and to bring it into auction and adjust the sale proceeds towards the loan amount. Even though the said clause can be invoked, when the society intends to initiate action for the recovery of the loan amount, in the instant case when the boat was seized nearly after a period of two years after the disbursement of the loan, there is no impediment on the part of the society to initiate action in terms of the above said clause, particularly when there is an allegation to the effect that the complainants have not paid the instalment towards the loan in time. Even otherwise after seizure of the boat as early as in the year 1997, the appellant/society has not initiated any action till 2003, when the complaint is filed before the District Forum by the respondent. That apart, it is not in dispute that the complaint given by the society was not proceeded with and the charge sheet is referred. It is only under the said circumstances, the District Forum instead of awarding huge amount as claimed by the respondent/complainant towards mental agony and compensation, has passed an order for the payment of Rs. 25,000 towards damages. The District Forum has also made it clear that the society is entitled to proceed as against the then President of the society to recover the compensation paid to the complainant.

IN the light of the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We make it clear that the society is entitled to recover the amount as ordered by the District Forum and payable to the respondents/complainants from the then President of the society. It is also made clear that the appellant society is entitled to sell the seized boat. It is needless to point out that the appellant/society shall first comply with the order of the District Forum, and thereafter initiate such action as it deems fit as against the then President of the society in terms of the order of the District Forum.

THE appeal is dismissed with the above terms. Appeal dismissed.