BEFORE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT INDORE

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 319 of 2022

Om Prakash Mandale ………Complainant

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society & Ors. …Opposite Parties

Misjoinder Application for deletion of the name of Mr. Alok Chand Pandey
from the array of the opposite party no. 5 from the complaint under Order
I Rule X of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The applicant/opposite party no. 5 most respectfully prayed as under that-

1. That in the present complaint, Mr. Alok Chand Pandey, Deputy Senior
Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. has been arrayed as
Opposite Party No. 5.

2. That the Applicant is in receipt of a notice in Complaint No. 319/2022,

wherein he has been made a party. The complainant himself has stated in
the complaint petition that he has invested the contribution amount in the
scheme run by Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited, in connection
with the payment of which this complaint has been submitted.

3. That the complainant has arrayed Mr. Alok Chand Pandey by name
individually addressing him as Deputy Senior Manager of Sahara Credit
Cooperative Society Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 5).

4. That it is pertinent to mention that the complainant has stated in the

complaint that he has deposited the amount in the scheme run by Sahara
Credit Cooperative Society Limited.
5. That Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. is formed and duly constituted
under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and
functions in consonance with the said Act.

6. That Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. invested the funds of the
investors in accordance with the Section 64(f) of Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002 under the general superintendence and direction of the
Board of Directors. Thus, the day to day management of the business of the
Cooperative Society is under the control of the Board. Therefore the
Applicant being an employee can not to be held liable in any manner
whatsoever for the monetary/transactional dispute arose between the
members of the Society.

7. That it is pertinent to mention that section 49 of the Act, 2002 states that:

“the Board of Directors may exercise all such powers as may be necessary
or expedient for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act.”

In light of the abovementioned excerpt of the provision, it is being clarified

by the same that all the monitoring/functioning powers of the Society are be
exercised by the Board and not be surveilled by the employee of the Society,
therefore no fault has been committed on the part of Applicant. Hence the
Applicant/Employee is not liable for the any managerial decisions of the
Society.
8. That the Applicant is only an employee in Sahara Credit Cooperative Society
who is working for his livelihood not holding a position to operate or
supervise the transactions being occurred between members and the
Society.
9. That it is also pertinent to mention that only the Board of Directors of the
society shall exercise the powers that would be necessary and mandatory
for the functional environment of the society. However, there is no liability
or responsibility that can be imposed or affixed on any employee, worker or
any other post holder of the society.

10. That the applicant is neither the Chairman/Director nor holding any key
managerial position in Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited; the
applicant has been falsely arrayed in the complaint.

11. That the applicant has never met, does not know, nor promised to pay any
amount to the complainant and the applicant has nothing to do with the
complainant.
12. That in view of the applicant, who is a citizen of India and is fully honest
and loyal to his duties and responsibilities, the applicant considers it
appropriate to present his side before the Hon’ble commission.

13. That it is also necessary to make aware that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its various judgments has clearly defined that a person who is not involved
in the management of the day-to-day activities and activities of an
organization cannot be held responsible for the acts neither committed by
the institution/company nor any civil/criminal proceeding against him shall
be justified.

14. That it is not the responsibility of the applicant to pay any amount to the
complainant and the complainant is not entitled to receive any money from
the applicant. The applicant has no liability towards the complainant.

15. That the complainant has wrongly and unnecessarily been made a party in
the complaint in order to harass the applicant and tarnish his image.
Therefore, consumer complaints against the applicant are not sustainable.

16. That in the interest of justice, the name of the applicant i.e. Alok Chand
Pandey deserves to be deleted from the list of opposition parties.

PRAYER

In the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble

District Commission may kindly be pleased to:

1. Strike out the name of Mr. Alok Chand Pandey/Opposite Party No.5
from the array of opposite parties;

2. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and
proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE APPLICANT AS IN

DUTYBOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Date:

Place:
Applicant