IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI.

Dated 23^rd day of September 2016

Complaint No.201/2015

Present:                    1) Shri. B.V.Gudli              President.

                                2) Smt. Sunita                   Member.

-***-

Complainants:           

        1)     Shri. Vithalrao Balasaheb Patil,    

Age: 74years, Occ: Agriculturist,

                   R/o. Shivaprasad Nivas, Gorakshan Road,

                   Link PB Road, Near Police Station,

Gorakshan Mal, At/po: Sankeshwar,

Tal: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

          2)      Sou. Vaishali W/o. Vithalrao Patil,

Age: 62years, Occ: Household,

                   R/o. Shivaprasad Nivas, Gorakshan Road,

                   Link PB Road, Near Police Station,

Gorakshan Mal, At/po: Sankeshwar,

Tal: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.                                   

(By Sri. K.R.Shaha, Advocate)

V/s.

Opponents:      

        1)     The Chairman, Shri. B.A. Mane,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Sankeshwar, Jayaprakash Nalavade Shop, Infront of S.T. Stand, P.B. Road, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri,

Dist. Belagavi.

          2)      The Vice - Chairman, Shri. R.A. Sutar,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Near S.R. Patil Petrol Pump, S.G. Road, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

          3)      The Director, Shri. Prakash Narayan Sutar,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Azad Road, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist.Belagavi.

          4)      The Director, Shri. Appasaheb Veerbhadra

Tammabad,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Housing Colony, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

5)      The Director, Shri. Mahendra V. Savagaonkar,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Chate Galli, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

6)      The Director, Shri. Chandrakant Bharamaji

Pednekar,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Yashodhan Foot Wear, PB. Road, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

7)      The Director, Shri. Pundalik Irappa Karigar,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Burud Galli, Near Hanuman Mandir,

Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

          8)      The Director, Smt. Yashoda Govind Karale,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Pawar Chal, Namaz Mall, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

          9)      The Director, Shri. Satteppa S. Hukkeri,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Sankeshwar at : Gavnal, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

          10)    The Secretary, Shri. Mallappa Laxman Sapate,

                   Shri. Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Sankeshwar Kurankar Chal, S.G. Road, Sankeshwar, Tq: Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi.

       (O.Ps. 2, 5 and 6 by Sri.S.L.Karale Adv and OP.1,3, 4, 7 to   by Sri.M.M.D.Bharamagol, Advocate)

(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

:ORDER:

          The complainants have filed complaint against Opponents U/s.12 of C. P. Act alleging deficiency in service of non payment of the amount of matured F.D.Rs.

          2) In-spite of service of notice Opponent appeared  through counsels and  filed objection and OP.2, 5, 6 and 10 have filed their affidavits.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, complainants have filed their affidavit by way of evidence and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainants.

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complaint has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and entitle to the reliefs sough?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

::REASONS::

7) On the perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainants, the complainants have stated that, for the future maintenance & to solve the domestic financial problems in future they were very much interested to invest their saved money in some FD scheme, wherein they can get better interest. The complainants came in contact with OPs who explained about their scheme of term deposit & also promised that at the nick of time they will immediately released the amount with accrued interest. Hence believing the words of OPs the complainants invested their saved money in FD scheme as detailed under:

          After maturity of the said F.D.Rs the complainants have personally approached the opponents and requested for the release of the matured amount with interest, but the OPs are postponing the same on one or the other pretext.  

8) Lastly fed up with the OPs behavior,  complainants have issued legal demand notice through their counsel on 12.11.2014, calling upon the OPs for the immediate release of the amount with interest upto date till its complete realization. But till today the OPs have not complied the said notice and thus caused deficiency in service and due to deficiency on the part of OPs the financial problems of the complainants are not solved in time. Therefore complainants are constrained to file this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.

9) On the other hand the OPs have filed their objection, OP-2, 5, 6 and 10 have filed their evidence affidavit and OP-2, 5, 6 have produced their written argument and admits certain facts of complaint and denied certain facts. The OPs contend  that, the complainants are made the wrong persons as parties in this complaint who are not as members at the time of the business transaction with the complainants, and the OP.No.2,5 and 6 have already submitted their  resignation letter to the OP society. The OPs further contend that, the board of directors are changed in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society before filing the complaint by the complainants. The OP’s No. 2, 5 and 6 in their affidavit contend  that, the complainant No. 1 has invested the amount in respect of F.D.R’s at the age of 74 years in his name and in the name of the complainant No. 2 at the age of 62 years. And the occupation of the complainants are stated to agriculturist and  housewife respectively. Hence one needs to examine the source of the earnings/income of both complainants and they need to produce the return of Income tax. Hence it becomes mandatory upon the complainants to prove the source of his income, since if he has not paid the income tax on the amounts. And prays to dismiss the complaint.

10) On going through the allegation of the complainants and the contents of the objection of the O.Ps, the contention of the OPs is that, the complainants are made the wrong persons as parties in this complaint who are not as members at the time of the business transaction with the complaints, and the OPs.No.2,5 and 6 have already submitted their  resignation letter to the OP society, to substantiate this contends of the  OPs No. 2,5 and 6 regarding resignship they have produced the resignation letter which are submitted by them on 12.10.2012, 08.10.2012 & 17.10.2012 respectively to the society. Perusal this resignation letters we notice that the OPs No. 2,5 and 6 have  submitted the resignation letter to the OP society on 12.10.2012, 08.10.2012 & 17.10.2012 respectively and on perused the FDR’s produced by the complainants have deposited the amount in OP society in the year June 2012 onwards i.e. before the resignation of the OP’s no. 2,3 and 5 but there is no cogent evidence, that the resignation has been accepted by the society. Hence we can make out that at the time of the business transaction with the complainants OPs No. 2,3 and 5 were the members of the OP society. Hence the contention of the OPs that the complainants are made the wrong persons as parties in this complaint who are not as members at the time of the business transaction with the complaints is unbelievable. The another contention of the OPs is that, the board of directors are changed in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Credit Society before filing the complaint by the complainants. For support of the contention the OPs are produced the copy of list of new board of management of the OP society from 2014 to 2018. On peruse of the document produced by the OPs we notice that, the new management body elected for the period 2014 to 2018.  Hence this contention of the OPs are true and believable. But at the time of the business transaction with the complainants, OPs No. 2, 5 and 6 were the members of the OP society at the time of the business transaction with the complaints Hence we are of opinion that the OPs are jointly and severally answerable to the claim of the complainants as all of them. The next contention of the OP’s are that, The OPs  in their affidavit contends that, the complainants No. 1 has invested the amount in respect of F.D.R’s at the age of 74 years in his name and in the name of the complainants No. 2 at the age of 62 years. And the occupation of the complainants are stated to agriculturist and  housewife respectively. Hence one needs to examine the source of the earnings/income of both complainants and they need to produce the return of Income tax. Hence it becomes mandatory upon the complainants to prove the source of his income, since if he has not paid the income tax on the amounts are subject to rules and regulations. Coming to the point that, It was the  duty of the OPs that, to collect the necessary documents from the complainants as per the rules of the society at the time of the deposit which is kept by the complainants in OPs society. Hence we are of opinion that, it becomes not mandatory upon the complainants to prove the source of his income and collect the necessary documents from the complainants as per the rules of the society and release the matured FDR’s amount.   

11) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant, the FDR’s are standing in the name of the complainants and after maturity of F.D.Rs. the opponents have not paid F.D.Rs. amount with interest.  Hence, the claim of the complainants that inspite of the demands made the amount remained unpaid, has to be believed and accepted. It is well settled legal position that non payment of the amount deposited, amounts to deficiency in service.

12) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s have been proved.

          13) Taking in to consideration of various aspects and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) SCCR 268 and of the Hon’ble Apex Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 574 as well as other subsequent decisions absolutely it is just and necessary to impose cost on daily basis if order remains uncomplied within the period fixed for compliance of the order, so as to have feeling and pinch.

          14) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

           The complaint is partly allowed.

         The Opponents shown in the cause title jointly and severely are hereby directed and liable to pay the complainants as order below;

The deposited amount as mentioned in column No.4 with agreed rate of interest 12% p.a. from the dates mentioned at column No.3 upto the dates mentioned at column no.5 respectively with future interest @8% p.a. from the dates mentioned at column no.5 respectively till realization of the entire amount.

          The Opponents shown in the cause title are jointly and severely are hereby directed and liable to pay the complainants sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

         The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

         If the order is not complied within stipulated period, opponents are hereby directed to pay a Rs. 50/- per day to the complainants from the date of disobedience of order, till the order is complied.

         (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 23^rd day of September 2016)

Member                                  President

msr*