|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO the people of Tiruchirapalli in Tamil Nadu, the Tiruchirapalli Wholesale Cooperative Store was more than just a wholesale shop, which they frequented to buy household goods. It was also a trustworthy place to deposit their hard-earned savings. And for over a decade and a half, the store continued to earn their trust, till one day in 1999, it announced that it could not redeem the deposits. As depositors’ tales of woe splashed across the pages of local newspapers, the local consumer group—the Consumer Protection Council—decided to step in. And then began its six-year-old battle for depositors’ rights. When it filed the first batch of complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, perhaps even the Council had no inkling of how its class action suit on behalf of 35 depositors of the cooperative store would snowball into a mass movement to bring to book those responsible for mismanaging the consumers’ deposits. In response to the council’s first complaint filed in June 2000, the district forum directed the society to return the deposits of all the 35 complainants, along with interest, compensation and cost, running to Rs 25 lakh. And the society promptly paid it up in November, the same year. From then on, for the depositors of the store, known more by the name of Chintamani Cooperative Society, all roads led to the Consumer Protection Council. And the council did not disappoint them. As and when the consumers came, the consumer group filed complaints, the second batch of cases running to 280. And the District Forum passed similar orders. But this time round, the society was not so prompt in its payment. In fact, instead of paying, it went in appeal before the State Commission, Tamil Nadu. Now the consumer group’s view was that in addition to the Special Officer appointed by the government to oversee the cooperative, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was also liable, as he had not enforced several stipulations required under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. In a bid to escape this liability, the Registrar filed an appeal before the State Commission and later the National Commission too. The National Commission not only refused to free the Registrar of his liability, but also asked the consumer group to get a list of all those who held the post of registrar and special officer in the last six years so that the liability could be fastened on them too. Meanwhile, by 2003, the consumer group had managed to get Rs 26 lakh released from the cooperative towards the refund of deposits of 53 consumers. Subsequently, with a loan from the Tamil Nadu Government, the society paid in October 2004, another group of 153 depositors, the total running to Rs 1.23 crore. But there were more depositors who needed to be paid and the consumer group was not prepared to give up till each depositor got back the money. This time, to escape liability, the Registrar ordered closure of Chintamani. As pressure on the consumer group mounted to prevent this and also save the jobs of 250 employees, it entered into an agreement with the society. Accordingly, Chintamani would not close and it would release from its monthly earnings, Rs 7.5 lakh every month towards payments of matured deposits. If the society defaulted, then the consumer group would be free to exercise it right to take the case to the National Commission for execution of the order. Says S. Pushpavanam, Secretary, CPC: "So far the depositors have got back Rs 2.33 crore, but another Rs 1.4 crore is yet to be paid (as per the agreement, by December 2006). And the total number of depositors on whose behalf we have filed cases has now gone up to 462." The consumer group is now appealing to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister to grant a loan of Rs 1.4 crore to the society so that it can pay this amount. It has also appealed to the government to take criminal action against all those who mismanaged the society’s funds, misappropriated these and brought it to this stage. This is one of the first class action suits of this kind filed by a consumer group before the consumer court, involving so many depositors (462) and such large funds Rs 3.73 crore. |
