Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that the opponent is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act that he had invested a sum of Rs.10,000/- in fixed deposit for 60 months from 09.04.2001 to 09.04.2006 and it has matured on 09.04.2006. Then he approached for payment of the maturity value, but the opponents turned a deaf ear. Thereafter, he got a legal notice issued on 18.05.2005, but the opponents did not respond and therefore have caused deficiency in their service in not refunding the maturity value of Rs.20,100/- and thus has prayed for ordering refund of maturity value with 18% interest and to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 2. The opponents have filed a common version admitting investment of money by the Complainant and issue of fixed deposit receipt to him. The opponents have also admitted the receipt of legal notice but have contended that the Complainant on their approaching agreed to take the money after sometime and have further contended that an enquiry under section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is initiated and until that enquiry is completed they are not able to pay and further stated that the amount claimed by the Complainant is frivolous and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. The Complainant and In-charge Secretary of the opponents have filed their respective affidavit evidence, during enquiry reiterating the grievances and the contentions raised in their respective Complaint and version. The Complainant has produced the fixed deposit receipt and copy of the legal notice. Heard both sides and perused the records. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in service of the opponents?<br /> 2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- As could be gathered from the version and the affidavit evidence filed by the opponents, they have not denied investment of Rs.10,000/- by the Complainant with them in a fixed deposit, which matured on 09.04.2006. The opponents have also not disputed that they have not paid the maturity value of the fixed deposit receipt. Therefore, the only question that needs to be answered is whether it amounts to deficiency?<br /> 7. The opponents have not denied their liability to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposit receipt amounting to Rs.20,100/- due on 09.04.2006. But, they have contended that the Complainant agreed to receive that money after sometime. The Complainant has denied the same. If the contention of the opponents is true, the Complainant would not have got issued a legal notice and approached this Forum for the relief. If the opponents were really prompt in refunding the money of the Complainant they could have done so even after filing of this Complaint to prove that they are not deficient in their service. But have not chosen to do so. Therefore, this matter does not detain long to arrive to conclusion. <br /> 8. The fixed deposit made by the Complainant with the opponent has matured on 09.04.2006. The opponents under the fixed deposit receipt have agreed to pay interest at 15%. They have not come forward with any explanation for not paying the maturity value. The contention raised by them that an enquiry under section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act is pending and therefore cannot settle the claim until the enquiry is terminated cannot be accepted. The enquiry contemplated under section 64 of the Societies Act has nothing to do with the claim of the Complainant and is not a bar for settling the claim of the Complainant. That enquiry contemplated is only with regard to the internal affairs or management of the society and therefore, in our view is not a bar. Therefore, the opponents have not come up with any sustainable objection for the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, under these circumstances, we hold that there is deficiency in the service of opponents in not paying the maturity value of the fixed deposit receipt issued by them. Though, the opponents can be fastened with the liability of paying interest, but for the deficiency of service they have to be levied with some penalty by ordering payment of some compensation for their deficiency. With the result, we answer the point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opponents are jointly and severally are held liable to pay the maturity value of fixed deposit receipt Rs.20,100/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 09.04.2006 till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opponents shall also pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant with the cost of this Complaint quantifying to Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 4. The opponents shall pay the amounts awarded above within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.3,000/- awarded at 3 supra also from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />