Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/449/2015

Sudha L Redekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Basavaraj S Mantur. Liquidator Of Om Ganesh Cr Sou Saha Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Sakri

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

ORDER

          I. The complainant/s are different in both the cases, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the respective complainant/s. In both the cases the O.P. Souhard Sahakari is same, represented by Liquidator, Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 2 cases and same number of complainant/s are there having different addresses and particulars of their deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular cases.

          III. The parties will be referred to as complainant/s, and opponents instead of serial number, as in all cases their numbers are same.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the respective complainants have filed the complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in banking service of non refund of the fixed deposits/deposit.

          2) After service of notices the opponents No.2 and 4 appeared through their counsel and opponent No.1 and 3 appeared Inperson.

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant/s, the complainant/s have filed his/her affidavit by way of evidence and original F.D.Rs. are produced by the complainant/s.

          4) We have heard the arguments of complainant/s advocate and O.P.2 and 4 and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) The complainant/s alleged in the complaint that they retained F.D.Rs. in the opponent Souhard Sahakari and after maturity the O.Ps. fail to honour and it was learned that the Souhard Sahakari is being liquidated and opponent No.1 Liquidator is incharge of day today affairs of the Souhard Sahakari and the Secretary Opponent No.2 is managing affairs of the Souhard Sahakari with opponent No.3 and 4. The complainant/s further alleges that the liquidator has assured to make payment and requested to renew the deposit for another 2 years but the O.P.No.1 refused to renew the matured F.D.Rs. and matured amount is not paid to the complainant/s. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opponents and prayed to allow the complaint. The complainant/s further alleged that the deposited Rs.22,272/- on 2/8/2010 and the matured amount is Rs.25,836/- under F.D.R A/c. No.20965 matured on 2/8/2012 and Rs.21,900/- deposited on 10/5/2003 and maturity amount is Rs.1,00,000/-, matured on 10/5/2013.

          8) The O.Ps. on the other hand filed their objection and O.P.No.1’s objection is taken not filed and the O.Ps. No.2 to 4 have filed their objection contending that the allegation made para No.1 to 6 are false and not maintable in the eye of law and the complaint/s have to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non joinder of parties. The opponent No.2 and 4 further contended that Administrator was appointed and thereafter the liquidator came to be appointed by the ARCS Chikodi on 21/9/2011 and since then till today the entire business of the Souhard Sahakari is been looked after by the Liquidator. These O.Ps. further contends that the deposits as alleged are absolutely false and ill-legal and F.Ds. are barred by limitation and that there is outstanding balance of Rs.25,836/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.  On the other hand the O.P.No.3 appeared Inperson and filed objection and documents and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant/s are false and deserved to be dismissed and not maintainable eye of law and para No.1 to 6 are complaint/s are false and concocted. The O.P.No.3 further contends that he has resigned from the post of Secretary on 12/9/2011 and nowhere concerned to the Souhard Sahakari and prays to dismiss the complaint/s against O.P.No.3 etc.

          9) We have perused the documents produced by the complainant and O.ps. and also heard argument on the both the sides. For the sake of convenience the common order is passed considering the facts and allegation of the both the parties. Moreover, the objection filed by O.P.No. 2 to 4 are similar and have denied the entire complaint/s including the deposit made by the complainant/s. The O.P.no.3 was specifically prayed to dismiss the complaint against him by producing the order passed by this Hon’ble Forum in complaint No.234/2014 and also has produced the letter for accepting resignation of O.P.No.3. The point to be here is considered that though against the O.P.No.3 the complaint was dismissed against him, cannot be considered by this forum because forum cannot considered its own order passed in some other case and dismissed the complaint against O.P.No.3 in the present complaint on hand, as the facts that complaint are totally different from the facts of the complaint/s in the present case. It is pertaining to note that, the resignation copy produced by the O.P.No.3 in these case has been accepted by the Administrator who was appointed to the Souhard Sahakari to lookafter the affairs after Souhard Sahakari was liquidated. Therefore the documents so produced cannot be taken into consideration as the ARCS who is officer of the societies has not accepted and there is no document coming forth before the forum to show that ARCS Chikodi has accepted the resignation of O.P.no.3. Hence the O.P.No.3 is equally liable as the other O.Ps. in the present case are liable the answer the claim of the complainant/s.

          10) The O.ps. No.2 and 4 have denied entire contends of the complaint/s without any documentary evidence. Therefore merely denied the allegations will not suffice and will not absolve from the liability against the complainant/s. Hence considering the objection and evidence of the O.Ps. We are of the opinion that O.Ps. 1 to 4 are liable to answer the claim of the complainant/s.

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

          12) 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.

          13) Accordingly, following order.

: ORDER :

          The complaint is partly allowed.

The O.Ps. represented by the Liquidator, Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,836/- in respect of F.D.R. A/c. No.20965 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 3/8/2012 till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

So also, O.Ps. represented by the Liquidator, Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of F.D.R. A/c. No. 656 with future interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 11/5/2013 till realization of the entire F.D.Rs. amount.

          The O.Ps. represented by the Liquidator, Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman jointly and severally are hereby directed and liable to pay to the complainant/s a sum of Rs.3,000/- each towards costs of the proceedings.

          Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the order.

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

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.206/2015 and the true copy in other clubbed cases.

          (Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22^nd day of April 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*

Annexure

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant/s

1. CW-1 Shri. Hari Sakharam Patil,
2. CW-1Smt. Sudha Laxman Redekar,

Documents produced by the complainant/s

1. Original F.D.R. Nos.20965 as exhibited C-1
2. Original F.D.R. Nos.656 as exhibited C-1

Witnesses examined on behalf of the opponent

1. RW-1 Liquidator, Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman opponent Souhard Sahakari in both cases.

Documents produced by the opponent-No.3

1. Attested copy of resignation accepted letter.
2. Order passed in complaint No.234/2014 and 304/2014.

Member                   Member                                  President.