BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 6th November 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 248/2015
Complainant/s:
Shivappa s/o.Chennabasappa Agadi, Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Jinnur village, Tq. Kalaghatagi, Dharwad.
(By Smt.Geeta M.Yadappanavar, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s:
Ashok S/o.Kallappa Arshinger, Age: 50 years, Occ: Secretary, Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakar Sangh Ltd., R/o.Jinnur village, Tq. Kalaghatagi, Dist.Dharwad. Permanent R/o. At Post: Tabakadhonalli, Tq. Kalaghatagi, Dist.Dharwad.
(By Sri.S.S.Fakirgoudar, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay the FD amount with accrued interest, to repay Rs.3,590/- paid in excess and collected by the respondent, to order for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is an agriculturist and also an employee under the respondent working as Secretary. On 26.04.2013 complainant availed loan of Rs.25,000/- for cultivation of the agricultural land. Accordingly respondent sanctioned loan of Rs.25,000/- with chargeable interest of 14% p.a. At the time of sanctioning loan the respondent advised the complainant to invest Rs.4,000/- in FD for one year under Bhagyalaxmi FD Scheme which is payable after maturity with interest @8% P.A. Accordingly the complainant invested Rs.4,000/- in FDR 000125. Towards the repayment the complainant on 18.02.2014 paid in lumpsum Rs.32,740/- towards the repayment of the borrowed loan. Infact the repayment amount would have to be Rs.29,200/-, but respondent collected Rs.3,590/- in excess. The respondent reluctant to repay the matured FDR amount inspite of several requests and personal approaches. Thereafter complainant got issued legal notice calling upon to return the excess amount collected and to release the FDR amount. Despite service of notice the respondent did not replied nor complied which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying taking contention that, the complaint as brought is not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent taken contention that the complainant being a member of the respondent society, the complaint as brought is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and prays for dismissal of the complaint on that ground also. While the respondent admits avail of loan and rate of interest. While the respondent taken contention that since the complainant failed to repay the loan amount as undertaken by him within stipulated time the interest shall carry @16.5% from the date of avail of the loan. Accordingly the respondents charged the interest and calculated the amount which inclusive of miscellaneous expenses charged on loan account. While the respondent denied the excess amount received as alleged in the complaint. So also the respondent admits the FDR amount and due while denied the maturity amount as claimed by the complainant. Further the respondent do not disputes the repayment but taken contention that as the respondent society is under financial loss is not in a position to pay the same and the complainant knowingly well of the real facts even though there is no cause of action to file the instant complaint as such prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. The respondent apart from argument relied on citations. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Affirmatively
- Accordingly
- As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant has availed the loan and repaid the same. Further it is also not in dispute that the respondent has withhold the FDR amount payable to the complainant.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the complaint as brought is barred by the jurisdiction of this Forum. Further whether the respondent have collected more money towards the loan amount than what they are entitled, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. Since the complainant filed this complaint with regard to deficiency in service pertaining to loan transaction this Forum is not barred by jurisdiction as contemplated U/s.70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. So also the complaint do not comes under sec.118 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The citation relied by the respondent 2000 (3) CPR 381 – SCDRC West Bengal, Calcutta, has no relevancy to this case. Hence, this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the same and this complaint is maintainable.
8. On the pleadings and evidence and documentary evidence it is evident that the complainant had availed the loan and repaid the same. On perusal of the calculation memo filed by both the parties it is evident that the complainant has paid additional amount of Rs.957/-. On perusal of the contents of the written version and memo of calculation filed by the respondent has charged Rs.950/- towards the miscellaneous charges but no details are produced. However this being the loan transaction of the year 2013, while processing the loan certainly the respondent society being a public sector financial institution under Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act banks certainly incur additional expenses in processing the loan. Under those circumstances the amount collected Rs.950/- from the date of process of loan till repayment is not exorbitant. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for repayment of amount on this head.
9. With regard to the FDR amount the respondent admits the non payment, as the respondent society is suffering from financial loss. For the mere reason as contended by the respondent the official of the respondent society has misappropriated the amount and the society has underwent loss, is not a reason for withhold the same and causing loss to the innocent deposit holder. As per the FDR Ex-C3 and also as per calculation sheet, till to the date 29.10.2015 from the date of investment, the interest @8% amounts to Rs.781/-. Accordingly the complainant is entitled for Rs.4781/- towards the FDR amount. Non payment of the same certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant has established deficiency in service against the respondent with cogent and appulsive evidence. Hence, complainant is entitled for the relief with cost. As per out discussions and findings we have inclined to hold issue.1 in affirmatively and isse.2 in accordingly.
10. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay FDR amount of Rs.4,781/- to the complainant with further interest from 29.10.2015 @8% P.A. along with Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 6th day of November 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
