( 1 ) wp7616-7618-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7616 OF 2010 Amol Suresh Patil PETITIONER VERSUS Kum. Aparna Vasudeo Mhaskar and another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.P. Patil, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7618 OF 2010 Amol Suresh Patil PETITIONER VERSUS Vaibhav Vasudeo Mhaskar and another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.P. Patil, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) wp7616-7618-10 2. Both these petitions are being decided together in as much as a common question of law involved in this petitions is as follows : "Whether the Director of a Cooperative Credit Society can be made liable to pay the amount of depositors by the orders of the Consumer Court ?" 3. The respondent No. 1 in each of the petition had deposited certain amounts with the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Cooperative Credit Society. The Cooperative Credit Society was unable to refund the deposits on account of financial difficulties. It is alleged that the Chairman and the Directors of the Cooperative Credit Society indulged in financial irregularities, fraudulent transactions and, therefore, the corpus of the Cooperative Credit Society was made unavailable for refund of the deposits to the creditors. The depositors approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing applications. They sought recovery of the deposits from the petitioner who is the alleged Director. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the claims of the respondent No. 1 in each of the petition. ( 3 ) wp7616-7618-10 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant record, it emerges that the petitioner was the Director of the Cooperative Credit Society. He was not member of the Loan Committee. Nor there is any specific finding to the effect that due to his misfeasance or misconduct, the depositors were put to loss. Needless to say, the petitioner could not be saddled with the liability to refund the amount of the depositors. 5. It may be said that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such kind of complaints. This Court in "Sau. Varsha Ravindra Isai vs. Sow. Rajashri Rajkumar Chaudhari and others" (writ petition No. 5223/2009 and group of similar petitions), held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum cannot be invoked by a depositor for recovery of the deposited amount from the Director/s. The learned Single took survey of catena of decisions and held that the liability can be fastened only on the Cooperative Credit Society, but not on the Director. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to the extent of present petitioners, are unsustainable in the eye of law. ( 4 ) wp7616-7618-10 6. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside to the extent of the petitioners. It is made clear that the respondent No. 1 in each of the petition may proceed to recover the amounts of deposits from the respondent No. 2 - Cooperative Credit Society. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp7616-7618-10