Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/117/2017

Hussain Bi W/o Late - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adivala Primary Krushi Pattina Sahakara Sangha - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:17/11/2017

DISPOSED      ON:23/03/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 117/2017

 

DATED:  23^rd MARCH 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGDCLP  

……COMPLAINANT/S	Hussain Bi, W/o Late Mohammed Sab, Age: 65 Years, House wife, R/o Pitlali village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. Aytharappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	Adivala Primary Krushi Pattina Sahakara Sangha, represented by its Chief Executive Officer by name Devanand, Adivala, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga   (Rep by Sri.H.K. Vijayakumar, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.75,000/- the FD amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of maturity of the same, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, Rs,5,000/- towards costs and such others reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, her husband by name Mohammed Sab S/o Pakir Sab has deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- with the OP on 24.07.2014 under A/c No.157/1A for a period of three years.  The complainant is the nominee under the said deposit.  Such being the case, the husband of the complainant died on 26.07.2017 leaving behind the complainant and his legal heirs.  After the death of her husband, the complainant as a nominee has claimed the amount deposited by her husband.  After receiving the necessary documents from the complainant, the OP refused to pay the same by taking a contention that, her husband was not a member of the above society at the time of depositing the amount.  Finally, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP requesting to settle the claim but, the OP refused to settle the claim and have taken a contention that, one H.C. Ramakrishnappa was working as CEO was utilized the amount deposited by the husband of complainant.  It is admitted by the OP that, the OP society has issued the FD certificate to the husband of complainant.  The FD matured on 24.07.2017 but, OP failed to pay the FD amount with interest to the complainant as OP is held liable to pay the amount.  OP sangha is not diligent in paying the said amount to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has suffered mental shock and agony and OP is liable to pay the compensation in this regard.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 24.07.2017 when the FD matured and on 11.10.2017 when the date of issue of legal notice to the OP which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow this complaint.           

3.      After issuance of notice to the OP, OP appeared through Sri.H.K. Vijayakumar, Advocate and filed version.  According to the OP, 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.  The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The allegations made in para 1 that the complainant husband P. Mohammed Sab S/o Pakir Sab was the account holder of the OP under A/c No.157/1A as per the Pass Book and he has deposited Rs.75,000/- on 24.07.2014 under the Mahatma Reinvestment deposit receipts scheme for a period of three years and on 24.07.2014, the OP Sangha issued the cash received receipt, FD certificate in the name of Raitara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., Adivala under Receipt No.1195 on 24.07.2014 by the OP are all false.  The allegations made in para 2 that the complainant has requested the OP Sangha for settling the claim are all false.  The allegations made in para 3 of the complaint that, the complainant has got issued legal notice to the OP requesting to pay the FD amount are all false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same and there is no cause of action for this complaint.  It is further submitted that, the husband of the complainant P. Mohammed Sab was not a member of the OP society, he has not deposited any amount in the society.  During 2014, one H.C. Ramakrishnappa was the CEO in the society and during his period he has mis-appropriated the huge amount and at that time he may contacted and given FD certificate to the husband of the complainant as alleged in the complaint.  The OP society has initiated enquiry proceedings against the said Ramakrishnappa and the same is pending.  It is true that the OP society has issued a letter to the husband of the complainant stating that the FD amount has been deposited by Mohammed Sab and there is no question of deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint and the said Ramakrishnappa is not made as a party to this proceedings and hence on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.       

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-7 were got marked and closed her side. On behalf of OP, one Sri.S.K. Devananda, the CEO of OP society has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence Ex.B-1 document has been got marked.  

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, the OP society has committed deficiency in service for non-settling the claim of the complainant i.e., the FD amount made by her husband and entitled for the relief as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is the case of the complainant that, the husband of complainant by name Mohammed Sab S/o Pakir Sab had an A/c No.157/1A with the OP has deposited Rs.75,000/- on 24.07.2014 for a period of three years under Receipt No.1195.  The complainant is the nominee under the said deposit.  Her husband died on 26.07.2016.  After the death of her husband, the complainant waited for the maturity of the FD and the same has been matured on 24.07.2017.  After expiry of the matured date, the complainant requested the OP so many times by orally to settle the claim, the OP has collected all the documents from the complainant but, failed to settle the claim.  Finally on 11.10.2017, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP, the same has been served to the OP on 16.10.2017.  After service of the notice, the OP refused to pay the bond amount to the complainant.  The main repudiation of the OP that, at the time of depositing the amount by the husband of the complainant, one Ramakrishnappa was working as a CEO, he has mis-appropriated the amount deposited by the husband of complainant.  But, the OP admits that the FD bond was issued by the OP society and further OP has taken a contention that, the husband of the complainant was not a member of the society at the time of depositing the FD amount.

 9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP.  As per Ex.A-1, the OP has issued FD receipt to the husband of the complainant.  Ex.A-2 is the accepted letter for issue of bond and Ex.A-4 is the deposit receipt issued by the OP society.  Ex.A-5 is the Pass Book, Ex.A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 are clearly shows that, the husband of the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- in the OP society on 24.07.2014 for three years under Receipt No.1195.  The husband of the complainant was the account holder A/c No.157/1A.  The complainant got issued legal notice to the OP.  OP appeared through counsel and filed version.  The main contention taken by the OP that, the husband of the complainant is not a member of the society, on that ground, the complainant is not entitled to receive FD amount, which is not correct.  According to the version of OP, OP has admitted that, the receipt has been issued by the OP for having received the amount towards FD, therefore, the OP is held liable to pay the FD amount to the complainant.  Here, the case on hand is that, the OP has taken main contention that, the husband of the complainant is not the member of the society.   The duty of the society is to obtain membership of the depositor.  The OP admits that, the husband of the complainant was having account in the society but, denied that, at the time of FD, one Ramakrishnappa was working as the CEO, he has mis-appropriated the entire amount, the enquiry is also initiated against the said person.  Whatever it may be, the complainant should not be suffered for any mistake done by the official of the society.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, the OP is deficient in settling the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant along with accrued interest from the date of deposit till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 03/03/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. S.K. Devananda, the CEO of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original FD receipt
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 04.08.2016 by the CEO of OP
03	Ex-A-3:-	Affidavit of Dadapeer S/o Late Mohammed Sab
04	Ex-A-4:-	Receipt for having paid the amount of Rs.75,000/-
05	Ex-A-5:-	Pass Book
06	Ex.A-6:-	Legal Notice dated 11.10.2017
07	Ex.A-7:-	Postal receipt and acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

List of membership of PACS, Adivala

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**