Karnataka

Kolar

CC/14/2013

Smt. P. Bhuvaneswari - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. T. Nagaraj

17 Jan 2015

ORDER

  Date of  Filing : 01.02.2013

  Date of Order :  17.01.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated 17^th   JANUARY 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM           …….      PRESIDENT

Sri. H.JANARDHAN                         ……..     MEMBER

 

CC No. 14 / 2013

 

Smt. P. Bhuvaneswari,

D/o. Subbareddy,

Aged about 34 years,

No. 1129, Fort,

Kolar.

 

Now Residing at: No. 2913,

Near Chinmaya Shishu Vihar School,

Kolar – 563 101.    

 

(By Sri T. Nagaraja, Adv.)                                      ……. Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 

1. The Manager,

    Karnataka Contractors Sahakara

    Bank Niyamitha, Branch Office,

    PWD Office Building, M.B. Road,

    Kolar.

 

2. The Liquidator,

    Karnataka Contractors Sahakara

    Bank Niyamitha,

    Rep. by Additional Registrar of

    Co-op. Societies, Kavery Bhavan,

    Bangalore.

 

(By Sri. C.B. Jayarama  Adv.)             …… Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

By Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM,  PRESIDENT

 

This Complaint has filed by the Complainant against the OPs U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to pass an order directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,01,470/- in deposit against the maturity with 24% p.a. interest with costs and other reliefs. 

 

2.       The brief facts of the Complaint is that, the Ops is the registered Society under the Karnataka Co-Operative Society’s Act 1959 and its Head Office is situated in K.R. Road, Bangalore and the OP No.1 is doing money lending business from many years with general public and offering the general public for giving the higher rate of interest to the fixed deposit.   OP No.2 is Liquidator, rep. by its Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore.    The complainant further submitted that the she has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 31.07.2001 with OP.1.   The details of the Fixed Deposit is as hereunder:

Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Cash Certificates

Sl. No.	Bond No.	Date of Issue	Date of Maturity	Deposit Amount	Matured Amount
1.	025819	31.07.2001	02.05.2007	50,000/-	1,01,470/-
Total					1,01,470/-

 

The complainant submits that, the Ops working in a suspicious way by not giving the matured amount and to mislead the depositor under the impression that the OP Bank is in good business transaction.    The complainant further submitted that, after the maturity of the deposit amount period, she approached the Ops for refund of the matured amount, but unfortunately and surprisingly the Ops avoided the complainant for refund of the same.    Then the complainant got issued the legal notice dated 10.12.2012, calling upon them to refund the matured amount, but Ops inspite of receiving of the said notice neither replied nor refunded the matured amount.      Hence this Complaint. 

 

3.       Upon service of notice on OPs and the OPs have appeared before this Forum and filed their version.   In its version OPs contended that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.    Ops further contended that the Reserve Bank of India has cancelled the licence to carry on banking business of Karnataka Contractors Sahakara Bank Niyamitha, in India, under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and has prohibited it from paying any amount and as such, the OP.2 is unable to return the deposits of its customers.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.    The Ops further submitted that as per Section 118(2) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, while a co-operative society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the Liquidator as such or against the society or any member, except by the leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.    Further the Ops contended that Karnataka Contractors Sahakara Bank Niyamitha is the process of the winding up and the OP.2 is appointed as the Liquidator for the purposes of winding up, as such, the present complaint filed without leave of the Registrar is clearly barred by the provisions of the above Act.    The Ops further contended that as per Sec – 70 of the said Co-Op. Act, if there is any dispute touching business of Co-Operative Society, the same has to be decided by the Registrar of Co-Operative Society alone.   Hence, OPs pray to dismiss the Complaint.

 

4.       To substantiate the case of the respective parties, complainant and OP No.1 had filed their evidence and also we have heard the arguments. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, following points will arisen for our consideration.

 

(i)      Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(ii)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief?

 

(iii)    What Order ?

 

5.       Our findings to the above points are:

 

(i)      In the affirmative

 

(ii)     In the affirmative

 

(iii)    As per final order

 

REASONS

 

6.       Point Nos. (i) & (ii) – On perusing the pleadings and evidence placed before us, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 31.07.2011 for the period of 06 years.    It was also not in dispute as per the fixed deposit bond the maturity period was shown as 02.05.2007.    If such being the case, it is the bounden duty of the Ops to return back the hard earned money with accrued interest to the complainant.   Per contra, Ops contended that, the Reserve Bank of India has cancelled the licence to carry on banking business of Karnataka Contractors Sahakara Bank Niyamitha, in India, under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and has prohibited it from paying any amount and as such, the OP.2 is unable to return the deposits of its customers.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.    The Ops further submitted that as per Section 118(2) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, while a co-operative society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business of such society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the Liquidator as such or against the society or any member, except by the leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.    Further the Ops contended that Karnataka Contractors Sahakara Bank Niyamitha is the process of the winding up and the OP.2 is appointed as the Liquidator for the purposes of winding up, as such, the present complaint filed without leave of the Registrar is clearly barred by the provisions of the above Act.    The Ops further contended that as per Sec – 70 of the said Co-Op. Act, if there is any dispute touching business of Co-Operative Society, the same has to be decided by the Registrar of Co-Operative Society alone.  

 

On the above said contention raised by the Ops and when we read with section – 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986, which reads as:

 

“Act not in derogation of any other law

          The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

 

          The provisions of the Act are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.   Manifestly, provisions of the Act grant additional remedy to the consumers but where the remedy itself is barred by some provisions of some other Act then the remedy which the consumer prays cannot be granted by the various forums constituted under the Act – Presidency Post Master v. Dr. Shanker Rao 1993 (2) CPJ 141.”

 

In the light of the above provision of law, when the dispute between the service provider and the customer, the customer has got every right to move into this Forum by way of additional remedy.   The Law mandates Consumer Act is benevolent legislation to protect and safeguard the interest of the Consumers.   Hence, the contention of the Ops cannot be acceptable one and it holds no water.    Furthermore, when the complainant deposited her hard earned money, if money is not given to her on its maturity it obviously amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.   Whatever it may be the reasons, it is the bounden duty of the Ops and they should make all endeavor to pay back the amount in deposit with interest and not doing so it is a miscarriage of justice and gross deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.   Above all, when the legal notice is served on the Ops, but the Ops have no simple courtesy to reply to its customer and to pursue them, it shows that how they are playing oppression on the customers and made them to wander to pillar to post.   However, the complainant filed Memo stating that she has received Rs.1,12,380/-, if such being the case Ops are liable to pay the further interest from the date of maturity till the date of realization of the entire amount by deducting the above paid amount.    In the light of above discussions,  we are of the considered opinion to hold that Points (i) & (ii) in the affirmative.

 

7.       Point No. (iii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

1.       Complaint is allowed with cost.

 

2.       Complainant on receipt of the above said amount Rs.1,12,380/- from the Ops and the Ops are directed to  liable to pay the further interest from the date of maturity till the date of realization of the entire amount by calculating the day to-day interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

3.       OPs are directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

 

 

4.       OPs are directed to submit compliance report within 45 days along with day to-day calculation of interest.

         

5.       Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 17^th January 2015.

 

 

 

             MEMBER                                PRESIDENT